Mad about Citizens United? Yeah, it’s Bad, but We Can Do Something
by Jennifer on 02.26.2010
As the chief elections officer of Ohio and a former judge, I was sickened by the U.S. Supreme Court’s actions in moving up an issue not even ripe for determination and pushing the conservative activist majority rule of the court on the American people. It’s such an irony that the ruling that stands to gravely hurt the American people is entitled, “Citizens United.” It’s clear that the purpose of the decision is to water down the collective power of living, breathing American “citizens united” such as we saw in President Obama’s unprecedented and precipitous election in 2008.
One of the most exciting things about the 2008 presidential election was the sea of new faces of all colors, nationalities, and backgrounds who had never before in their lifetimes been so excited about being part of the political process. I knew that in this next generation, many of these first-time campaign workers would become candidates themselves, changing the face of our elected officials at all levels to look and think more like the rest of us.
Then along came the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United, working in stealth and behind closed doors to dash the very hopes of so many for a new kind of politics that is inclusive, netroots fueled, and demanding greater personal contact, authenticity and honesty.
Lately, it’s been looking like corporations already vote—with their special interest money that has pervaded and corroded the health care reform debate, that has frozen meaningful banking regulation to help consumers and small businesses, and that has given the sound of immigration reform the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. I guess it was only a matter of time before someone would actually give corporations the right to speak with their money like real people do. But I never thought it would be our U.S. Supreme Court, the ultimate guardian of the nation’s sacred constitution.
Quietly, I’ve said to myself that perhaps this will eventually (sooner than later I hope) go the way of the Dred Scott decision. Everyday people have already been harmed in many ways by the influences of this special interest money in politics (for starters take foreclosures and consumer finances). How long will it take the high court to realize its ideological blunder? So, at this point, at the very least, we must buttress the system against more corruption by these new artificial “people” with political voices created by our nation’s highest court in the name of “equality.”
Protecting the vote is my job now, and no matter where I go or what I do, I will view that charge as the job of any public officer and citizen of the United States. That’s why in the midst of this impending calamity I want to shout, “Don’t just stand there—DO something!”
As Ohio’s chief election officer, I am in a position to do something. I’ve proposed legislation to the Ohio General Assembly to deal with the high court’s decision’s effects on the laws in Ohio, one of many states affected by the sweeping decision. Ohio law currently forbids corporations from using their money or property for any partisan political purpose (anything involving partisan candidate campaigns; that is, candidates, PACs that support candidates, legislative caucuses and political parties).
When I presented our proposal to Ohio’s statehouse press corps Wednesday I was asked if I’d talked to the state’s legislative leaders or the governor about it. I straightforwardly answered I had not, because this was something that could not afford to be watered down or whittled away in pieces. We must move forward with a comprehensive solution that seeks to shore up the system and make it airtight for transparency and accountability. Dickering to leave out one or another entity involved in the ebb and flow of political dollars can create a quagmire for the voters. Because, let’s face it, political advertising is meant to influence how you and I vote. If we can’t have truthful ads, we can at least know who is making the speech and judge for ourselves the speaker’s interests and motives.
What I have done as Secretary of State is recommend changes to Ohio elections law on independent expenditures for election advertising, and I am urging the Ohio legislature to enact these changes in time for the 2010 midterm elections. Much of what I recommend would work for federal elections as well. Congress should enact similar changes on the federal level.
What the nation’s highest court basically did is rule that corporations and certain other entities have a constitutional right to spend money for or against a candidate in an election, as long as the effort is not coordinated with a campaign (i.e., is independent). Ohio law currently forbids such independent expenditures by corporations (as well as contributions to candidates), but the Supreme Court’s ruling makes Ohio’s law against corporate independent expenditures unenforceable.
My greatest concern is for the indirect use of corporate money for independent expenditures. For example, Corporations A, B and C all give money to Nonprofit Corporation 1. Corporations A, B and C get to hide their identities behind Nonprofit Corporation 1, because there’s no requirement for Nonprofit Corporation 1 to show from where it got its money. This is where we need to guarantee the American people transparency and accountability and minimize the decision’s negative impact on voter confidence and participation.
The legislative changes proposed for Ohio represent our best effort to protect our state’s voters from subterfuge and to give them tools to investigate the potential deluge of political advertising and its authenticity. The changes would apply to all corporations (for profit and nonprofit), labor organizations, political action committees, legislative caucuses, and political parties, and are designed to enable citizens to learn exactly which of these entities are paying for the election advertising that they see or hear.
Public reporting within 5 days by those making expenditures: First, any covered entities making independent expenditures for partisan political purposes (which includes election advertising), or contributing to other such entities for the purpose of expenditures of that kind, would be required to publicly report to the Ohio Secretary of State within five days the making of those independent expenditures.
Segregation of contributions received to make independent expenditures: Second, any covered entity making independent expenditures that receives any contributions for that purpose would be required to segregate the contributions from other funds and report them to the state.
No independent expenditures by 20% or more foreign-owned corporations: Third, no for-profit domestic corporation could make any independent expenditures at all for any partisan political purpose if owned 20 percent or more by any foreign (out of country) corporation.
No independent expenditures by corporations receiving public money: Fourth, no corporation could make any any independent expenditures for any partisan political purpose if it receives any state funds or federal funds issued by the State of Ohio.
Clearly visible disclaimer in advertisements, including Web site address: Fifth, advertisements funded by one or more direct or indirect independent expenditures would be required to contain a clearly visible disclaimer identifying the name, treasurer’s name, address, and Web site of the entity that has paid for the advertising.
State Web site registries of broadcast ads in digital form, along with disclaimer and buy schedule: Sixth and finally, any broadcast media advertisement that is paid for by one or more direct or indirect independent expenditures would have to be registered with the Secretary of State on or before the date it airs. A digital copy of the advertisement and the disclaimer, along with a copy of the schedule when it is to air and any subsequent schedule changes, would be immediately posted to the Secretary of State’s Web site.
The Republican response? The Ohio Senate President said that he’d have to wait and see how the Citizens United case is interpreted. That’s just plain stalling and portends a giant mess for the 2010 elections and beyond.
We’ve got to speak up now and clamor for transparency and accountability at both state and federal levels of campaign finance oversight. We must speak up to protect our system from being engulfed by artificial voices lacking compassion or a thirst for justice. The best of humanity must prevail.
Only we can change the impact of the Citizens United decision, and we must do it by speech and more speech. We must never, never give up until the collective voices of the real citizens united are heard and respected by those whom we elect to carry out the ends our democratic system of self-governance.