Will Citizens United Sound the Death Knell for American Democracy

              Robert A. Levine    5-31-12

It may come off as hype even talking about the end of democracy in America, but one has to wonder about that as the repercussions of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court become more evident. America’s democracy has survived many hits in the past, but it’s possible this one could be a knock-out blow. And once down on the mat, democracy may not be able to get up again.

This consideration was raised by a recent Politico article reporting that Republican Super PACs will spend a billion dollars to try and elect their candidates in this election cycle. (http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=482f87de1d55a93ceaa04945cb513295628728e3a741d9bd5de4fba222ff3263) These are not grass-roots organizations, but groups financed by a few big donors. For example, groups linked to the Koch brothers will spend about $400 million alone, organizing operations in important districts and states.

Now, there are those who will say ‘so what,’ and that campaign spending is like a popularity contest, where candidates with the most appeal raise the most money. And that the Democrats can also try and generate as much money as they can if they want to make the races more competitive.  And that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote. And that Obama spent three quarters of a billion dollars on the last presidential campaign anyway.

In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated.  They can distort opponents’ messages, say things out of context or with only a kernel of truth, or frankly lie or make up stories, with no one and no governmental agency to take them to task.

By buying up enough air time in major markets in the swing states, they can completely dominate the political dialogue in the presidential campaigns, restricting the ability of opponents to respond over the airways and drowning out any counterthrusts. These kingmakers can similarly impact Congressional and Senatorial races with their money, electing men and women with worldviews comparable to their own, thus being able to determine governmental policy.

Unfortunately, this control of the electoral process can become self-perpetuating, extinguishing the vestiges of democracy.  Instead of free and open elections, America could undergo a transition to a plutocracy, where the very wealthy have the power and make the rules. The only way this can be averted is if common sense limitations on campaign spending by individuals and corporations are instituted again. But how can this happen if our elected representatives, along with the president and Supreme Court are opposed to any restrictions?

Economic inequality in America will grow even worse in the future, as the tax laws and regulations are further shaped to favor the rich. And this will be more than matched by the disproportionate political power of the rich. If these Super PACs are allowed to continue to control the discourse, any semblance of fairness that remains in political campaigns and elections will vanish.

Some see a negative legacy from George W. Bush’s presidency as a result of the Iraq War and tax laws that increased the nation’s budget deficits.  However, I believe his enduring legacy will be his nominations to the Supreme Court, with its Citizen’s United ruling that gave control of the political process to the extremely wealthy.

James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers- “We may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class.” We are now moving away from this vision for our republic and whether or not this trend can be reversed remains a question.

Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

The Scourge of the SuperPACs

                                    Robert A. Levine   

 In this era of unconstrained attack ads and extreme partisan politics, a plague has visited America that increases divisiveness and negativity, generated not by the hand of the Almighty, but through the pockets of the most affluent. This scourge of the SuperPACs has put democracy at risk. A small number of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as unions and other groups, have been pouring money into the SuperPACs to hijack the political process and elect federal officials who favor their interests. Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, financiers, private equity and hedge fund managers are the major contributors. Indeed, it appears that the support of Adelson and his wife ($10 million) is what is keeping the Gingrich candidacy for president alive.

While the SuperPACs have recently had an impact in the GOP primaries, the huge sums they are collecting will certainly play a role in the general election for president as well as congressional and senatorial races. This inflow of money was legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United two years ago. However, it now threatens America’s democratic process, where everyone’s voice was presumed to be equal in electing officeholders. But in the name of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court provided a megaphone to wealthy political activists to promulgate their views, whereas ordinary citizens can only whisper.

 One person, one vote is no longer a realistic description of how elections work. When individuals can donate millions to tens of millions of dollars to these SuperPACs, enabling them to influence numerous voters, something is rotten in America. In the Republican primary races in contested states, the media buys of the SuperPACs have dominated the airways, even dwarfing advertisements by the campaigns themselves. While the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, the strong connections between them are thinly veiled, with many personnel employed by the SuperPACs previously having worked for the campaigns.

Though contributors to the SuperPACs are supposed to be revealed periodically, this is often done after the relevant election has passed, preventing voters from learning who was donating and how much to each candidate. And many of the donations are completely concealed from the public by the donors’ use of limited liability corporations or other entities to shield their identities. Some of the SuperPACs also employ 501(c)(4) affiliates to hide their donors, supposed non-profits that do not have to disclose who gives them money. The Republicans have benefited most from the advent of the SuperPACs, with Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney group, leading the pack. This PAC reined in close to $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year. 10% of all the billionaires in America have already contributed to Romney. But the Obama campaign has recently signaled that it is going to step up its efforts to fund its own SuperPACs to compete with the Republicans.

 While there are strict limits on how much any individual can donate to a specific campaign ($2500) or party committee ($30,800) during an election cycle, the big hitters previously got around these restrictions by bundling contributions from friends, relatives and associates together. The Federal Election Commission was able to police these donations to be certain the limits were not being disregarded. But with the SuperPACs after Citizens United, there are no limits and no policing of political donations. A wealthy person or corporation can give any amount to support politicians of his or her choice. It is likely that over time, direct campaign financing will become less significant as the SuperPACs become the main conduit by which people, corporations, unions and other groups back candidates.

Can anything be done to reverse the pernicious ruling of the Supreme Court that has provided the moneyed interests with even more political power than they previously had? Overturning Citizens United which unleashed this scourge would take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither which is likely. Though it does not appear that Congress can stop the influx of cash (even if it were so inclined), it can increase transparency by making all of these contributions immediate public knowledge. Perhaps the negative publicity and rebuke that might follow would be enough for some of the affluent players to opt out of the SuperPAC sweepstakes, not wanting to subject themselves and their businesses to the kind of scrutiny that would result. Of course, getting Congress to act on this is another story.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com