Now that the “historic” 2010 mid-term elections have come and gone, it is time to reflect on the outcome of the election as a whole and how outside influences have impacted campaigns. One of the hallmark characteristics that history will define the 2010 mid-terms from will be that corporations could spend unlimited funds promoting one candidate over another and, more typical, bashing one candidate to assist another candidate. Nationally, millions upon millions of dollars were given to candidates by outside groups such as the United States Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. The Week magazine has an excellent break down of the spending here. This new wave of money being spent by Super-PACS has occurred because, as The Week simply put it, “The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. the FEC earlier this year gives corporations and unions the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech — meaning Big Business can spend as much as it likes on influencing public debate. Super PACs have emerged to help solicit those funds from corporate donors.”
In addition to corporations and Big Business being able to freely spend as much as it likes on influencing elections, many of the new Super PACs that have emerged do not have to disclose who is funding them. Many new Super PACs have registered as non-profit organizations under the tax code 501(c)(4). Such a registration allows Super PACs to promote policy and influence elections with a virtually unlimited supply of money from nameless individuals. Such a loophole has created a scenario where foreign entities have the potential to influence our elections. This scenario, most notably, reported when the United States Chamber of Commerce began pouring money into elections at all levels to the tune of $75 million. The issue of foreign contributions arose with the United States Chamber of Commerce because it receives donations from foreign entities and deposits all monies into one general account. Such an account is then used to finance political activities, hence, foreign contributions are funding domestic politics. While the Chamber of Commerce aspect has been the most widely commented in the news media, any 501(c)(4) organization could easily used undisclosed foreign contributions to finance political spending activities.
This activity by Super PACS has opened a new debate focused on whether or not such activity by organizations who do not disclose donations is an abomination on our democratic process itself. In a post in “The Hill” newspaper, Robert Weissman discusses how donations to Super PACS will hurt our democratic process. In his article, Weissman states that Super PACS are merely attack machines from organizations with no real membership or accountability. The other side of the debate focuses on ‘liberating’ advocacy groups to talk openly with people. Such an argument of liberation is bunk and undisclosed spending has started to hit too close to home.
In the recent Senate election between then Governor Joe Manchin and business mogul John Raese, West Virginia was the recipient of millions of dollars of Super PAC contributions. The Charleston Gazette first reported that a Super PAC was going to be spending large amounts on the Senate race. In the October 1 article, it was reported that American Crossroads GPS, an organization funded in part by Karl Rove, would be spending a massive amount of resources in West Virginia. The article states that American Crossroads would spend money on mail and phone calls. Additionally, the organization and several other Super PACs spent money in the Mountain State on television advertising aimed at negative advertisements against candidates.
West Virginia is an interesting study in the new arena of Super PACs. While Super PACS spent millions in West Virginia, using American Crossroads as a focus in the West Virginia Senate race, it was, seemingly, unsuccessful. One may, at first glance, think that spending millions like this would be a moot issue. However, even though the Senate race was perceived as lost by Super PACs that invested in the Republican Senate Race, the perceived loss was actually a victory. Although the Republican nominee for Senate lost and the Democrat candidate won, the investments by Super PACs throughout West Virginia has allowed for the Republican Party within West Virginia to expand. While this may not sound like a big deal to a lay person, it is a huge deal to a politico who studies West Virginia politics. As an historically Democrat state, West Virginia has slowly started to turn Red on a national scale. Not only has West Virginia voted for the Republican Candidate for President in every election since 2000, our state now has 2 out of the 3 Congressional districts represented by a Republican. Such an investment by Super PACs has helped this transformation to occur.
An influx of capital and attention, starting in 2000, exacerbated in 2004 and 2006 by Don Blankenship’s personal investments, and then further intensified by investments in Super PACs in 2010 has shifted the average West Virginian’s focus away from their personal needs and economic concerns and towards social issues merely tear apart friends and neighbors. This is not to say that only an influx of monies in West Virginia political races has turned West Virginia from a Democratic stronghold to a state that has the potential of going red. Historically, West Virginia has always trended more conservative than average blue states. However, the influxes of money from out of state corporate entities have allowed Republicans to spread their message more easily than in the past. The problem with such ability by the Republicans, especially, is that most of the funding used to spread the Republicans’ message, particularly in the 2010 election cycle, came from interests outside of our state. This can be likened to foreign monies being used to fund national races as noted above with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce illustration. So where does one draw the line?
The decision by the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United took an electorate system that was already influenced by corporations and outside interests and place it on steroids. This decision has done nothing but further complicate our election cycle and continue to turn people off to voting because of relentless negative campaigning brought on by corporate interests. The Supreme Court has allowed corporations to be viewed as having almost identical rights as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions. This decision has only started to wreak havoc on our political system. By allowing the wealthy corporate interests to dominate the political contribution arena, elected officials will become even more concentrated on raising money to get re-elected instead of serving the people they were elected to serve. The need for money was at a premium before Citizens United. Now that elected officials know that they will have to compete with corporate interests who have virtually unlimited bank accounts, even more time will be allocated to fund raising and less time will be spent on the democratic process.
No comments:
Post a Comment