Some musings on the effect of Citizens United

It seems that the decision in Citizens United sparked, not so much spending as it has lively debate. The most controversial Supreme Court ruling in sometime (Rep. Alan Grayson demoaned the ruling as the “worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case”) has publicly been the target of attack from all directions, including President Barack Obama himself. The obvious thought that has dominated most press outlets and commentators everywhere is that the new ruling will cause a massive influx of money into campaigns, and as often happens when large amounts of money are involved, corrupt the politicians and system in general. But is this really the case?

There is no doubt that the ruling will, and has opened up the treasury coffers of many corporations, and flowed the funds into various political fronts. Notably, Target gave money to support an anti-gay measure in Minnesota, and in West Virginia mining executives are funneling money to those candidates who will help protect the industry so vital to this state’s health. Is there a greater advantage however from one side of the aisle to the other? Many new outlets would have you believe that, of course, the GOP and deep pocket Republicans will absolutely gain a huge advantage as a result of Citizens United, and many stories recently show that money for GOP campaigns and causes is up at the moment, but a larger question was raised: Is it truly because of Citizens United or a reflection of the feeling toward the current administration? My honest opinion on that topic is it’s probably a bit of both. As with the normal political landscape, when the party in control of the White House and Congress isn’t living up to the expectations of those who elected them (see George W. Bush’s 2nd term), there is backlash by more support for the other side in hopes of a change for the better. In reality, this occurs whether or not Target, Wal-Mart, Nike, or G.E. can spend lots of money on Republican supported issues or Democrat supported issues.

In the Court’s eyes, what this ruling did was level the playing field for all “persons” with respect to First Amendment rights of election speech. Prior to this ruling, news corporations were the only corporations that weren’t subject to the same rules as regular corporations. Now, it’s simply covered the gap between the two. Let’s be real, do any of us see either Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly not running their mouths 60 days prior to an election? Of course, not so in that sense, one could argue that simply giving regular non-news corporations the same right to speak (through spending unlimited amounts of money on ads of their choice) isn’t all that bad.

I suppose I simply choose to look at the upside this could bring rather than fall into the presumption that inevitably money will corrupt the system. Now that all corporations may have their say as persons, the voters are likely to be bombarded with much more material than normal heading into an election. Again, this could be a double edged sword. Information never hurt anyone, unless of course it’s inaccurate information. I don’t believe that this ruling will simply benefit the GOP because they have historically been the big money party, but I believe both sides will have greater support and the advantage of deep pockets will become a moot point. After these midterm elections, we will perhaps know more of the real effects this ruling had on political spending, since FEC reports occur monthly, the last big push of spending won’t be reported until after the elections.

Should the Democrats lose some key positions this November, the backlash from the left against Citizens United is a certainty, but is it warranted? This is a thought that will be debated for some time, but until there are concrete facts showing a one-sided advantage from this ruling, we can’t throw the Citizens United ruling under the bus just yet.