Back in February, I suggested four theories for why the White House spends so much time criticizing lobbyists and special interests. There's the "motivate-the-base argument," which called this an election-year ploy to get Democrats fired up. The "clean-up Washington argument" asserted the president is merely fulfilling his campaign promises. Number three was the "weaken-the-opposition argument," which suggested he was just trying to advance his legislative agenda. Finally, the "channel-public-anger-away-from-Washington argument" maintained the president's populism was an attempt to deflect criticism.
During the past six months, it's become obvious that the administration's anti-lobbying and anti-corporate rhetoric - now standard stump-speech material for Democratic leaders - is intended to weaken the opposition by claiming the political game in Washington is rigged.
The controversial DISCLOSE Act, which failed in the Senate last week, is a case in point. When the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC, it struck down restrictions on the use of corporate and union money to fund independent advertising in elections. Since then, the Citizens United decision has become a call to arms for those who would like to restrain speech that opposes their point of view.
Sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act claimed the measure was designed to expand the disclaimer requirements the Court upheld in its ruling. But, before it was set aside in a cloture motion, the bill had grown into a three-headed monster that would have (1) created a set of vague disclosure rules designed to scare companies away from political involvement, (2) imposed restrictions on government contractors and firms with a minimal amount of foreign investment, and (3) exempted large groups such as the NRA from regulation.
President Obama, in remarks just before the vote, wrongly asserted that "big corporations - even foreign-controlled ones - are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections." But Brad Smith of the Center for Competitive Politics, which defends First Amendment political speech and strongly opposed the act, notes that all types of organizations already face disclosure requirements and foreign companies are already prohibited from political spending. Smith maintains that the real motivation for the measure, as Senate sponsor Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, put it, was to have "a deterrent effect" on corporate speech.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza reports that Democrats are hoping the bill's demise will support the narrative that Republicans are obstructing the nation's progress because of their close ties to corporations. He quotes White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, who said the vote on the legislation was "a choice between the public and big corporations."
In the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "[it] is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule." While reasonable people have differences of opinion about the decision, no one has made a compelling argument that corporations, unions and other groups should have fewer free-speech rights now than they did before the court ruled. But that is exactly what would happen if the DISCLOSE Act or similar measures are ever signed into law.
In addition to the First Amendment issues, there is another big problem with the Democrats' strategy to silence corporate political voices. Despite polls showing public concern about the Citizens United decision, there is not great interest in laws that restrict political speech or curtail lobbying. (A Pew study last winter ranked lobbyists 19th on a list of the public's top priorities for 2010 - just ahead of trade policy.)
In the eyes of many Americans, time spent blaming corporations and lobbyists is time away from supporting job creation and economic growth. "It's not clear that anything can be a voting issue for the majority of the public beyond the economy," admitted Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, in an interview with Cillizza. He added, however, that "this can be another piece of a broader argument about going backwards, to the politics of the Bush era, or going forward."
Yet the speeches of anti-corporate politicians are not filled with words of hope or opportunity. Nor do they convincingly tie their efforts to restrict political speech to the economy or other major issues on the public's mind.
More legislative mischief is afoot. Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved the Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790), sponsored by Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., which would require an annual shareholder vote on corporate political spending. This would include not only independent expenditures, but also dues paid to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups that might be used for such political activities. Critics argue that requiring shareholder votes favors unions and violates the longstanding "business judgment rule," which assumes that company directors make management decisions in good faith.
"The Supreme Court decision effectively increases the influence of money in politics and diminishes the voice of the voter," said Capuano. "We should be working to limit outside influence on elections, not giving corporations a louder voice."
If the Shareholder Protection Act and similar proposals are meant to be a part of a broader argument about going forward, why are Democrats wasting so much time revisiting a court ruling from the past?
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
