Litigation

Did Court Predict Wrong on ?Citizens United??

By Peter Hardin

When the Supreme Court opened the spigot to corporate and union money pouring into campaign ads, it signaled the public would learn quickly who paid. But that didn’t happen, a Los Angeles Times article reports.

“Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.”

That’s the newspaper’s take on what went wrong after the high court issued its landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision in January. The outcome presents a different result from what the majority opinion writer, Justice Anthony Kennedy, envisioned:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.

“This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

By Tuesday, business groups, unions and interest groups pumped $266 million into the midterm elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, with at least $128 million coming from groups who don’t have to disclose their donors publicly.

A Des Moines Register editorial finds the trend disturbing. It urges voters to tell the candidates they back on Tuesday “to support legislation that will open the windows so the American people can always see who is paying to affect the outcome of elections.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 28, 2010 (boomark / email).