In case anybody missed it, Democrats don’t like the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the decision limiting the ability of the federal government to restrict political speech of corporations and unions. That’s what we can conclude from the latest release from Public Citizen.
This latest “report” from Public Citizen indicates the depths of ridiculousness to which the so-called reform community will go to attack Citizens United. Here is the alarming title of Public Citizen’s “report:”
Cause for Concern: More than 40% of Hill Staffers Responding to Public Citizen Survey Say Lobbyists Wield More Power Because of Citizens United
Wow, that’s scary, right? Fewer than half of staffers on Capitol Hill think lobbyists wield more power. But wait. Let’s probe deeper.
From the report:
“Public Citizen’s survey was sent to the e-mail addresses of 3,401 congressional staffmembers, split nearly equally between those who work for Republicans and Democrats. Responses were received from 80 staff members,…”
Whoa. Talk about valid sample. A 2.3% return rate, self-selected. Does no one at Public Citizen know anything about elementary statistics?* But wait, it gets worse. What follows that elipsis above is this:
“… of whom 70 percent work for Democrats.”
Seventy percent Democrats, who are a minority in Congress. In other words, if you take a miniscule, self-selected group of congressional staffers heavily weighted toward Democrats, you find that a minorityof that group feel that Citizens United is increasing the influence of lobbyists. Stop the presses!
The report continues:
“Of Democratic respondents, nearly three-in-five (57.1 percent) said Citizens United ‘has strengthened the influence of lobbyists in the policymaking process’ and 16 percent said they feel ‘a need to respond differently to lobbyists’ requests’ following the opinion. None of the Republican staffers said they believed that Citizens United has strengthened lobbyists’ influence or that they personally feel a need to respond differently to lobbyists because of the opinion.
“Of the staffers—all Democrats—who reported a need to respond differently to lobbyists, 78 percent said that they ‘worry about preventing electioneering expenditures against the member for whom I work.’”
Well. Democrats hate Citizens United, and worry about political opposition. Who knew? In fact, given the hysteria Democrats have shown about Citizens United, and their efforts to undercut the Court’s pro-free speech decision, we’re surprised that only 57% of these Democratic staffers gave the preferred answer. Clearly, the Democratic leadership isn’t getting the message through to its staffers!
Report finds 7 of 3401 congressional staffers surveyed express concern about Citizen United spending.
Oh, and by the way, if reading the above you get the impression that 78% of Democratic respondents are now responding differently to lobbyists, read again. In fact, only 9 staffers in the entire sample – 11 percent – said that they are responding differently to lobbyists. Seven of those 9 (78%) worry about electioneering.
In other words, 7 of 80 respondents are worried about spending permited by Citizens United. Or, to use the same type of spin they seem to like at Public Citizen, Public Citizens asked 3401 congressional staffers about Citizens United, and got 7 of them – all Democrats – to say that the possibility of corporate electioneering expenditures against their members caused them to give more influence to lobbyists. Gee, I wonder if we could have the names of the 7 congressmen who are now kowtowing to corporate lobbyists out of fear of being criticized if they don’t.
Should Congress be immune from Criticism? Public Citizen seems to think so – at least if it is criticism from business
Of course, once we get past the basic silliness of the sample and the alarmist tone of the report, some other questions should come to mind. For example, when we say “lobbyists,” don’t we really mean the interests that lobbyists represent – the shareholders, employees, and communities that benefit from that interest? And how does Citizens United have this effect? It allows corporations (and unions) to speak more freely about candidates for office, to try to persuade voters how to cast their ballots. Is this a bad thing? Should Congress not worry public opinion? Should members of Congress be free from concern that they might be criticized for their actions? The report quotes one Democratic staffer, responding to the possibility that his boss’s decisions could subject him to criticism, as saying, “This isn’t how the system is supposed to work.” Really? How is it supposed to work? Members are to be free from criticism?
From here, it sounds like Democrats are worried that if they pursue an anti-business agenda, they will criticized for that by business. Is that wrong? Should the system prohibit the targets of government regulation and taxation from speaking against that regulation and taxation, and the candidates who support it? It sounds to us as if these staffers are blowing the entire constitutional game – they are admitting that they need and want to silence political opponents, lest those opponents help convince a majority of the electorate that the policies they favor are not beneficial.
Pay no attention to the evidence – just listen to our conclusions
We also have to chuckle at this bit, buried in the middle of the report:
“Public Citizen’s informal survey was not intended to collect statistically significant data. The predictably low response rate and other limitations precluded any attempt to yield representative data on congressional attitudes.
“Nonetheless, the survey responses undercut a key rationale underlying Citizens United…. ”
In other words, “this little survey means nothing. Nonetheless, we’re going to issue a gaudy colored 9 page ‘report’ and claim that undercuts the rationale Citizens United anyway.”
If this is what the case against Citizens United has come to, we think that confirms our view that it’s a pretty darn good decision.
*Nevertheless, there are those who report this as if it were to be taken seriously. After all, this isn’t one of those polls that can be dismissed as one that anyone can get done for $600.
