Public Citizen is out with its one year report on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Its predictable claim: bad, bad, BAD!
But what odd criteria they use to come to such a conclusion.
From the organization’s summary press release:
[T]he damage is clear, … The tally:
—Outside groups are making record expenditures (more than four times as much spent in the 2010 midterm election cycle as in the last midterm election cycle in 2006);
—Congressional staffs and lawmakers are intimidated by corporate lobbyists like never before;
—Laws designed to protect the political system from the corrupting influence of money have been rendered dead in 24 states; and
—Power has shifted in dozens of congressional seats in races won with the help of undisclosed outside money.
Now let’s look at that a bit more closely:
Criteria #1: Public Citizen implicitly argues that it is per se good to limit political speech. Spending more on political speech is per se evidence that the decision was bad—it is “damage.” That’s a constitutional non-starter. The goal of Citizens United was to increase political spending. The Court struck the law down precisely because it limited political speech. Public Citizen is within its rights to oppose more political speech and to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to limit such speech (which, by the way, it does call for in the report), but only a tendentious argument could hold that more speech is objective evidence of “damage.”
Criteria #2: Here the report simply rehashes old arguments about the alleged effects of money in politics. Much of this portion of the report consists of describing pre-Citizens United events—an odd way to argue that Citizens United has caused “damage.” Beyond that, the evidence that staffs and lawmakers are “intimidated as never before” consists of:
A) A quote from defeated Rep. (and Citizens United opponent) Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), who complains that groups empowered by Citizens United spent $568,000 against him to criticize his record on health care reform. Maffei, however, outspent his opponent $2,988,652 to $660,670, or 4.5 to 1.
B) A quote from defeated Rep. (and Citizens United opponent) John Hall (D-N.Y.), who complains that groups empowered by Citizens United spent money to defeat him. Hall outspent his opponent, Nan Hayworth, by $200,000, thanks to raising $300,000 more in PAC money than Hayworth.
C) A quote from Rep. (and Citizens United opponent) Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who complains that groups empowered by Citizens United spent money to defeat him. Rep. DeFazio, who won re-election, outspent his opponent by $175,000, thanks to raising $627,000 more in PAC contributions than his challenger. Rep. DeFazio has stated that he is drawing up articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts for perjury.
D) A quote allegedly made by an anonymous (!) staffer of Rep. (and Citizens United opponent) John Larson (D-Conn.) to Public Citizen’s own Craig Holman: “How do I say ‘no’ to a deep-pocketed corporate lobbyist who now has all the resources necessary to defeat my boss in the next election?” The report then notes ominously, “The question remains unanswered.”
From this, I guess, we must assume that either 1) Rep. Larson is now selling out to any corporate lobbyist who asks; 2) corporate lobbyists are not making that threat; or 3) the staffer—or at least Rep. Larson—has figured out an answer. We’re betting on 2), perhaps with a touch of 3) thrown in. Aside: Rep. Larson outspent his opponent last fall by nearly 8 to 1. Aside 2: I really like Rep. Larson, from my brief acquaintance.
That’s it. There’s not even a single quote, let alone systematic evidence, to support the actual charge, that pusillanimous lawmakers now live in fear because of Citizens United.
Criteria #3: Yup, the decision overturned many state laws. That was the point of the suit. It cannot be held to be a per se reason for claiming the decision was bad, any more than Brown v. Board was per se bad because it overturned many state and local school laws, or Reynolds v. Sims was bad because it overthrew existing laws in all 50 states, imposing a one person/one vote requirement on all state legislative districting. And by the way, we didn’t need a year to figure this one out. We knew it last Jan. 21, when the case was decided.
Criteria 4: Here Public Citizen complains that there was more turnover in the legislature than in the past. Again, we doubt that this is “damage” at all, and certainly not per se evidence that Citizens United has failed. In fact, we think that turnover—indicative of more competition and less of an advantage for incumbents—is quite likely a good thing. And why must we point out again and again that Citizens United did not change disclosure laws?
