Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing; A Welcome, if Partial, Fix; Democracy 21 Statement
Below is an article about a Washington Post-ABC News poll that appeared today in The Washington Post entitled "Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing," and an editorial that appeared today in The New York Times entitled "A Welcome, if Partial, Fix."
According to the Post poll, eight out of ten Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizen United case to allow unlimited corporate spending in federal campaigns, with 65 percent strongly opposed to the ruling. The poll also found that 72 percent of respondents favored reinstating limits on corporate campaign spending.
The Post poll found relatively little difference between Democrats and Republicans with 85 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans opposed to the Supreme Court decision. The poll further found that nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservative Republicans oppose the Supreme Court ruling, with most of them strongly opposed.
According to The New York Times editorial, legislation to respond to the Citizens United decision is being prepared by Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen. The Times editorial states:
Although Democrats have led the drafting, this is a bill that should receive bipartisan support. All Americans should be concerned about corporations using their vast financial resources to obtain taxpayer bailouts and government contracts. The prospect of foreigners helping to choose our presidents and members of Congress should be troubling to all ideological camps. And the transparency provisions should appeal to anyone who cares about clean government.
The Times editorial concludes:
The Schumer-Van Hollen bill is expected to be introduced later this month. Congressional leaders should put it on a fast track so it can be in place in time for this year’s midterm elections. It could help keep special interest money in check until the real solution comes: a Supreme Court ruling reversing the deeply antidemocratic Citizens United decision.
According to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer:
The Washington Post-ABC News Poll shows that the radical and indefensible decision by five Justices in the Citizens United case to throw out a century of national policy and two decades of Court precedents intended to protect the integrity of our democracy is completely out of step with the vast majority of the American people. This includes Democrats, Republicans and independents, conservatives, moderates and liberals.
The five Justice majority in Citizens United elevated the interests of American corporations over the rights of the American people, and the Post poll demonstrates that the American people fully understand and overwhelmingly reject what the Court has done.
The Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case has completely isolated itself from the American people and from the longstanding judicial values and precedents of the Court. It’s hard to conceive of another Supreme Court ruling in which five Justices have found themselves so out of touch with the American people.
The poll also shows that a large bipartisan majority of the American people want a remedy to address the Citizens United decision. The legislation being proposed by Senator Schumer and Representative Van Hollen addresses the problems caused by Citizens United, is not partisan legislation and deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress to reflect the strong bipartisan support in the country for addressing the problems caused by the Citizens United decision.
It is essential, furthermore, as The New York Times editorial points out, that this legislation be placed on a fast track and enacted in time to be effective for the 2010 congressional races.
The Washington Post
Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing
By Dan Eggen
February 17, 2010
Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).
The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court’s decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican lawmakers have praised the ruling as a victory for free speech and have signaled their intent to oppose any legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court’s decision.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.
Democrats have seized on the ruling as an example of judicial overreach and vowed to enact new limits on political spending by corporations, which have traditionally favored Republicans in their contribution patterns. Obama said in his State of the Union address that the ruling will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
Republicans and business groups have rallied around the ruling, arguing that the decision merely levels the playing field with free-spending unions and other liberal interest groups. The new poll, however, suggests there may be political risks for the GOP in opposing limits that appear to be favored by the party’s base.
Nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservative Republicans say they oppose the Supreme Court ruling, with most of them strongly opposed. Some two-thirds of conservative Republicans favor congressional efforts to limit corporate and union spending, though with less enthusiasm than liberal Democrats.
Indeed, the poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers.
The questions on corporate political spending were included as part of a poll conducted Feb. 4 to 8 by conventional and cellular telephone. The margin of sampling error for the for the full poll of 1,004 randomly selected adults is plus or minus three percentage points.
Polling director Jon Cohen contributed to this report.
The New York Times
A Welcome, if Partial, Fix
Editorial
February 17, 2010
“Hi. I’m the C.E.O. of (Fill in the Blank) Corporation, and I approved this message.” If Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen have their way, you’ll be hearing those sorts of disclosures in political ads for November’s Congressional elections.
It is a sensible way for voters to find out which businesses, or unions, are using their treasuries to promote which candidates. And it has become absolutely necessary since the Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling last month in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
For more than half a century, corporations and unions have been barred from spending money to support or oppose candidates for federal office. After the court’s ruling, corporations and unions are now free to spend all they want in presidential and Congressional races.
That means that banks seeking bailouts, oil companies looking to weaken environmental protections, and other special interests can now flood political races with money to help their friends and unseat their critics. Unions have the same green light, but their financial resources are far more limited.
Senator Schumer, a Democrat of New York, and Representative Van Hollen, a Democrat of Maryland, said last week that they are preparing legislation that would ban campaign expenditures by recipients of federal bailout money — until the money is repaid — and by government contractors. It would also ban expenditures by foreign-controlled corporations, using an expansive definition that includes companies incorporated in the United States that are 20 percent or more foreign-owned.
Under the bill, corporations would have to disclose the sources and amounts of money that they use to pay for broadcast campaign ads, making it easier to monitor. They also would have to disclose all campaign spending within 24 hours on their Web sites and notify their shareholders on a regular basis. And chief executives would have to appear in broadcast ads paid by their corporations, the way candidates already are required to endorse their own ads.
One important element missing is a requirement that shareholders approve of campaign expenditures. Other members of Congress are working on one. When corporate or union leaders spend the money of shareholders or members on campaigns, they should be promoting their shareholders’ or members’ interests — not merely expressing their own political views. This requirement should be included in the final version.
Although Democrats have led the drafting, this is a bill that should receive bipartisan support. All Americans should be concerned about corporations using their vast financial resources to obtain taxpayer bailouts and government contracts. The prospect of foreigners helping to choose our presidents and members of Congress should be troubling to all ideological camps. And the transparency provisions should appeal to anyone who cares about clean government.
The Schumer-Van Hollen bill is expected to be introduced later this month. Congressional leaders should put it on a fast track so it can be in place in time for this year’s midterm elections. It could help keep special interest money in check until the real solution comes: a Supreme Court ruling reversing the deeply antidemocratic Citizens United decision.
