Arts and Entertainment Editor Opinion Piece
America’s
free elections are in danger of being legally bought out by powerful corporate
interests. The 2012 presidential election will be unlike any that have come
before it, due in part to a recent Supreme Court decision that we are only just
now seeing the fallout from. The case of Citizens United versus the Federal
Election Commission was heard by the Supreme Court in 2010, and it ruled that
corporations as legal entities are considered people. The decision reversed existing rules that
stopped corporations and non-profit organizations from airing campaign
commercials within thirty days of a primary or sixty days of a general
election. Coupled with an earlier Supreme Court decision in the case of Buckley
versus Valeo, which ruled that the spending of money qualified as a form of
protected speech, the results are disastrous.
The Citizens United case notably opened the door to the creation of
independent expenditure political action committees, commonly referred to as
Super PACs. When combined with a 501(c)(4) organization, a shell corporation
with little practical use, Super PACs can exploit loopholes in the election
system to collect unlimited, anonymous donations from corporations and
individuals to use them for political campaigning for candidates.
In January 2012, one fourth of all
Super PAC contributions came from just five individuals, who can effectively
turn the tide in the primary season in their favor. Individual campaign
contributions for a candidate are capped at $2500, but Super PACs provide an
easy way to circumvent that. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal , has
already donated over $2.6 million to Super PACs supporting Texas congressman
Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich has raised the majority of his contributions from
wealthy entrepreneur Sheldon Adelson.
President Obama had previously spoken
out against the Citizens United decision, and had declared that his campaign
would not use Super PAC money to compete in the 2012 race. The President later
reversed this position, explaining that he believed the only way to eliminate a
corrupt system would be to work from within it. When a few wealthy individuals
are allowed to pave a golden path to the presidency for whomever they choose,
the very integrity of our electoral process is sacrificed for a new system that
is corrupt enough to shame America on a global scale.
If
money is free speech, then the richer you are, the more free speech you are
allotted, and frankly, that’s not in the best interests of democracy. In an
effort to undermine the advent of Super PACs and encourage the Supreme Court to
reconsider its Citizens United decision, comedian and political activist
Stephen Colbert created his own Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow,
Tomorrow. Referred to in passing as the Colbert Super PAC, Colbert has used his
satirically conservative television personality to defend corporate personhood
and to ridicule the ludicrous expenses he can simply charge to the Super PAC.
While briefly toying with the idea of a presidential run, Colbert simply signed
over ownership of his Super PAC to his business partner, mentor, and close
friend, comedian Jon Stewart. Stewart used the Super PAC to support Colbert’s
campaign in the South Carolina primary, and both comedians were surprised to
find that the laws limiting coordination between Super PAC owners and the
candidates they support are rather lax. Colbert and Stewart could discuss their
individual plans on their half-hour television programs, which run back to
back, and simply watch each other’s programs to communicate back and forth.
In
addition to Colbert putting his weight behind an anti-corporate personhood
movement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has also been pushing the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On
Spending in Elections Act. The DISCLOSE Act, which would require clearer
disclosure of corporate spending on elections and revoke the ability of
government contractors to spend money on elections, was a bill passed by the
House of Representatives in summer 2010 after the Citizens United decision, but
it was filibustered and ultimately stalled out by the Senate. Pelosi recently
began a ‘Stop Colbert’ campaign, playing along with the comedian’s satirical
abuse of the Super PAC system. After appearing on his television program,
Pelosi agreed to support Colbert’s “Better Know a District” segment in exchange
for Colbert’s endorsement of the DISCLOSE Act. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent
politician from Vermont, has also pushed multiple constitutional amendments
that would bring an end to corporate personhood and effectively reverse the
decision in both the Citizens United case and Buckley versus Valeo.
When November 6 rolls around, and
millions of Americans head out to the polls to select the next President of the
United States, who will the real winner be? Will it be the Democrat or
Republican that receives the majority of electoral and popular votes because
they are supported by the majority of citizens? Or will it be the Democrat or
Republican that can solicit the most money from billionaire friends and
corporate backers?
