Forget Citizens United, the real corporate money is Big Media and the revolving door
That’s the basic premise of my latest piece in The Atlantic:
In a 5-4 decision in January of 2010, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional campaign finance regulations which restricted corporations and unions from using funds from their general treasuries in elections, striking down previous court decisions on the matter. This was met with a huge public outcry, especially on the left. Despite the Court’s decision having been made on First Amendment grounds, many liberals, upset by disproportionate corporate influence over the political process, worried that the decision would further entrench the power of corporations in American democracy.
Colbert’s satirical super PAC, however, far from effectively satirizing Citizens United, illustrates why this concern is misguided.
Prior to the 2010 decision, one industry already had the ability to dip into its bottomless war chest to influence electioneering. The big media companies, and their parent corporations like GE, have been historically excluded from campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold. This exclusion was understandable: restricting the freedom of the press is obviously unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
But the media has enormous power over the political process. Colbert’s nightly fake news show, for instance, has done a great deal more to influence American politics than anything his super PAC has achieved.
(P.S. a big thanks once again to the editors over at The Atlantic for publishing me. It’s a huge honor.)
Another Atlantic notch? Jealous!Report
Thanks. You should think about submitting something over there some time.Report
I wouldn’t even know how to go about doing it. Does one just shoot something over to Conor and say, “Hey, will you please pass this along?”Report
I’ll introduce you to some people when you’ve got something ready.Report
A very good piece Erik, you’re certainly right that things are a little more complicated than some of the opponents of The Citizens United case think it is.
I’m reminded of the phone hacking scandal in England last year. It turned out that pretty much every politicians of significance in the UK had spent time sucking up to Rupert Murdoch. The reason is that if you can’t spend money to put out your message the next best thing is to convince part of the media to carry your water for you. Concentrating power into the hands of the media instead of donors strikes me as a lateral step at best.Report
Exactly right. I think a push to make government more transparent and open would be a better place to focus efforts. I’d like more windows into how the revolving door works, more transparency in the lawmaking process, etc.Report
Transparency is good, though it relies on people actually paying attention to work.Report
And that, like human nature, we simply cannot change.Report
E.D. –
I enjoyed the Atlantic piece and agree that Big Media has undue influence. But I can’t get on-board with the idea that “Citizens United doesn’t change this so much as it levels the playing field.” To level the playing field, Citizens United would need to counter some existing influence on politics. I think the reality is rather that Citizens United doesn’t change things, but it does exacerbate the issue as Big Media is just another flavor of Big Money influence.
Sadly, you are probably right that Big Money will always find a way to thwart whatever legal barriers are put in the way. However, that can’t mean that the best course is then to roll over and not at least try to impede it. As you rightfully note, transparency is what is critical and Citizens United (by all I’ve seen) makes the anonymity of contributors easier and therefore more likely. The only way out of this morass as I see it is to eliminate PACs and other 527-like groups and then (lord save me, I’m going to agree with Gingrich) remove the limits on contributions to specific candidates in return for much greater contributor disclosure requirements and mandatory endorsement of the message by the candidate. Forcing candidates to own every political message made on their behalf would have to have some kind of clarifying effect.
As you and James K get at above, for transparency to matter people will have to pay greater attention. Perhaps, that is where social media and activists groups should come into play.Report
I just don’t see how any of these are enforceable. Ban 527s and PACs and you get something else. And why should the candidate have to endorse everything someone says about them that’s nice? I just don’t see how this would even work.Report
Ban 527s and PACs and you get something else.
I don’t know how else to interpret this than “I give up. Politics corrupted by money is inevitable.”
And why should the candidate have to endorse everything someone says about them that’s nice?
I think it’s more about having candidates cop to everything said about their opponents that isn’t nice.Report
Erik, nice article. I was on the fence about Citizens United up until I read it (to be honest, I’ve always found the topic kind of boring).
It’s interesting to note that the Atlantic commentariat hive mind seems to believe that viciously attacking Murdoch isn’t enough to make up for using Colbert’s name in vain.Report
You know, I don’t think I actually took Colbert’s name in vain, but yes, I take your point. This is a very divisive issue for reasons I’m not entirely sure of.Report
I don’t think you did either. But referencing the brilliance that is Stephen Colbert without genuflecting seems to be an unpardonable mortal sin.Report
A small quibble, Geithner might indeed shares Paulson’s buddy, buddy and too sympathetic attitude towards Wall Street, but unlike Paulson, I don’t think he actually made any fortune working for Wall Street. Except for a stint working for Kissinger(!!) early in his career, Geithner has spent his entire career in the public sector. That’s not to say that he won’t be passing through the revolving door after his stint as Treasury Secretary (I’m sure his pal Jamie Dimon can help him out), but it’s not accurate to say that he’s made any fortune from Wall Street as of now.Report
Yes, that was pointed out to me. Truth be told, I thought I’d taken Geithner out of the final draft. I don’t want to go to the trouble now to do that, but I do take your point.Report
You’d be better off using the example of Clinton and Bob Rubin to illustrate the “The revolving door spins the same for those on both sides of the political aisle” point. Otherwise, it would just give ammunition for people to say that you’re just using Geithner inaccurately to make the both-sides-do-it!! argument.
Truth be told, Geithner’s deference to Wall Street baffles me the most compared to Paulson and Rubin, precisely because he hadn’t make a fortune in Wall Street. He’s not really a creature of Wall Street, so where is that deference and overly-sympathetic view coming from?
Report
Nice piece, Erik. I enjoyed it very much. Yours is kind of the angle I’ve been approaching things lately.
Report
Agreed, tried (and failed) to comment on the Atlantic site and have posted the link far and wide in emails.Report
The point about Big Media is likely true, but I’m not so sure that the “revolving door” is so much of a problem. It’s really more of an issue of expertise in a field, in many cases, I’d say.
I’m having difficulty thinking of an appropriate parallel, so I’ll use myself as an example.
I’m pro- cap & trade, but anti- carbon tax. But that’s because I’ve worked on a few of the new super-critical coal burners.
I recently worked on a gasification facility. You can look up “Selexol” on Wikipedia to read a bit about the process. It removes the carbon pre-combustion.
That would work for a cap & trade scheme, but those who would implement the technology would still be penalized under a carbon tax.
I still see cap & trade as a means of a plant generating two products, becoming more profitable.
For me, trucking ammonia in to a power plant doesn’t make sense. It’s an unnecessary risk to public safety. There are systems that will generate ammonia on-site. Why not use them?
Now, were I to work in public service, I would advocate for those policies. As it is, I just stack the bricks on top of each other.
But say I leave public service. I would still then advocate those policies, due to my expertise in the field.
Now, if some trucking company paid me a gazillion bucks to say, “Let’s truck all the ammonia we can through the middle of downtown!” I might have to get out a calculator and do some figuring.
Maybe it is that being a peon has its payoffs in the lack of moral quandries.
Other than that, the rules for a connected committee or a candidate committee are far different than for a non-connected committee.
I wanted to get into that a bit, but I think I’ve run over-long anyway.Report