Most of the focus on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been centered on the impact of unlimited corporate spending in presidential, senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial elections. Although I am concerned about limitless corporate election spending in federal and state elections, I am more worried that Citizens United will have a negative impact on local governments.
Why would a corporation spend money on a city council or mayoral election when it could spend money supporting (or more likely opposing) a state or federal candidate? I suggest there are three reasons corporations may opt to use their new found free speech right to influence local government elections more easily than the state and federal government.
First, let’s face it, corporations will likely be able to get more bang for their buck in a city election. Unlike a state or federal election, it does not take much money to have a great influence on the outcome of a city council or mayoral race. For instance, when I was elected to Fairmont City Council in 2006, my campaign spent just $2,000. I can’t imagine I would have been successful had a corporation been willing to expend thousands of dollars to tear me down and/or advocate for one of my opponents. Of course, this claim doesn’t hold true for larger cities, but in West Virginia it is pretty cheap to play in city elections.
Second, corporations are more likely to get quick results from buying a few council seats or the mayor’s office. Corporations and citizens interact with local governments more on a daily basis than any other governmental entity. Both citizens and corporations rely daily on services proved by cities such as: water, sewer, police, fire, parks, snow removal, code enforcement, and garbage. All of these services are vitally important to the success of any corporation. Under Citizens United, corporations will be able to influence local elections so easily that our city services could begin to serve the interest of the corporation more than city residents. The nature of operating a city lends itself to be manipulated very easily for particular people or corporations. With a purchased council or mayor, a corporation could ensure that its interests are the top priority in terms of distribution of services.
Third, infrastructure is the lifeblood of any economy and corporations may be able to use their new found campaign spending right to improve their infrastructure at the expense of city residents. This could be done either through unlimited spending on a municipal bond election, which might not necessarily be completely self serving, or clandestinely pulling the strings of a city council or mayor it got elected.
I bring up the issue of corporate political spending in city elections, not because I believe that corporations are trying to “buy” city councils, but just to point out potential negative impacts Citizens United may have on our cities.
Those are all good points; however, query whether the nature of city governments also provides a remedy. That is, supposing all you say happened, aren't cities are small enough entities that all of the residents (the voters) would know darn well the game that was being played and would express their anger at the ballot box?
ReplyDelete