Political corruption illustrated; 1896 mural at the Library of Congress, Washington D.C.
It’s a cliche that politicians are corrupt, taking money in exchange for bending the law to favor their donors. But is the act of donating money to a politician a form of free speech? Can it — should it — be regulated?
The influx of cash into political races has always been controversial, and attempts to regulate it have always been difficult. The 2oo2 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain – Feingold bill) was an attempt to limit the influx of cash in federal elections.
But that bill was overturned in the 2010 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission case which, in a very narrow 5-4 decision, said that money equals free speech. According to Brendan Fischer:
In Citizens United, the court confidently predicted that unlimited “independent” corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. The court upheld and praised existing laws that require the disclosure of campaign spending, assuring us that they would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”
Ah, but as it turned out, disclosure is faulty and independence is elusive. In fact, politicians know very well where their contributions are coming from, and tailor their lawmaking accordingly.
Take Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who raised millions to fight off a recall campaign and worked with secret donors to coordinate the campaign. Similarly, Walker also pushed a mining bill favoring Gogebic Taconite company; the bill was vehemently opposed by environmentalists and Native American tribes. At the time, nobody knew that Gogebic Taconite’s CEO had secretly donated $700,000 to Walker’s campaign. So much for disclosure.
Theoretically, this secrecy is the one thing that Citizen’s United does not allow, but the Wisconsin state supreme court has said that this form of coordination and secrecy is also constitutionally protected.
So now a case testing that idea goes to the US Supreme Court at a time when the justices are split 4-4 along political lines, and no ninth judge is sitting that could break a tie. Where this will end no one knows, but it would not be out of keeping with tradition if politicians were not allowed to get away with secrecy along with their rampant corruption.
