A report released earlier this month by the Pew Research Center suggests that a majority of Americans believe Citizens United has had a negative impact on the election process. Fifty-four percent of the registered voters surveyed said they’d heard of the Supreme Court decision. Of those, 65 percent felt the decision has had a negative effect on the 2012 campaigns. The percentage of individuals with this view grew to 78 percent among those who self-identify as having heard a lot about the decision. The response was uniform among Republicans, Democrats and independents, and while men were more aware of the decision than women, a majority of all groups view the decision unfavorably.
What was at issue, and what are the arguments?
On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the First Amendment protects freedom of political speech for corporations, associations and unions. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission became a central issue in campaign finance, striking sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. More specifically, Citizens United addressed electioneering communication as well as corporate, association and union independent expenditure regulation. Candidates, members of the media, legal experts and citizens have expressed competing viewpoints on the implications of the case since the landmark ruling.
Most opponents argue that granting corporations the right to unlimited spending allows for corruption and bribery in the political arena. Notable opponents include President Obama, who stated in his 2010 State of the Union address that the ruling “open[s] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.” Not only has the decision allowed for newly created super PACs, a hot topic in this year’s election, but opponents contend it further complicates the already muddy waters of campaign finance regulation.
Yet many proponents argue that Citizens United gives freedom to advocacy groups that had been restricted under the BCRA. Cleta Mitchell, a Washington-based campaign finance attorney, commented in a Washington Post article on the disparity between the rights of media organizations and those of advocacy groups. She argued that while the media could lawfully disseminate information about political candidates and campaigns, “The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum,” which were previously unable to freely advocate without penalty. Citizens United bans direct campaign contributions to federal candidates while upholding disclosure requirements, and it bans foreign entities from making political contributions.
Now, two years after the decision, the controversy surrounding Citizens United is as palpable as ever. As the Occupy movements across America protest the ruling in courthouses nationwide and calls for the Securities and Exchange Commission to reform corporate disclosure mandates keep coming, the case is drawing increased attention. And the debate will most likely continue as the 2012 presidential race heats up.
Interested in learning more?
The Public Affairs Council will follow Citizens United developments and will continue to provide important updates as needed. If you have questions related to campaign finance or political action committees, please contact Breanna Olson via email or at 202.787.5969.
