Citizens United and McCutcheon: What You and I Can Do to Make It Right
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court poured another tanker truck
of gasoline on the already disastrous conflagration known as Citizens
United. In McCutcheon v. the FEC, the
5-4 decision once again affirms the earlier decision that money is speech, but this
pronouncement goes a bit further by providing for any wealthy individual to
influence unlimited numbers of political characters rather than follow earlier
law (1974) limiting the number of candidates to whom one could give money as
well as capping the amount given to each.
In other words, to Mitt Romney’s famous, “Corporations are
people too, my friend,” he could add
“and wealthy individuals can be unshackled lobbyists, my friend.”
According to On the Media, the McCutcheon decision raises
the limits able to be spent by an individual for individual donations from
$123,000 to $3.6 million – or nearly 30
times the amount limited by earlier campaign finance laws of 1974.
Shaun McCutcheon is a conservative businessman from the
state of Alabama who enjoys giving money to his favorite political candidates
and committees. His suit, supported by
the Republican National Committee, argued that his right to free speech was unfairly
and illegally constrained by the FEC’s Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 –
the result of concerns raised initially during the Watergate scandal and a
Congressional attempt to halt the possible corruptive influence of money in
politics.
The Roberts Court and the usual suspect judges merged around
the previous Citizens United argument that money is speech and speech must
remain free and without constriction.
Stock Tip: Citizens United has proven a huge monetary boon
to the corporate media in 2012.
According to Take Part, “Nearly
$6 billion was spent during the record-breaking 2012 election cycle…” Indeed,
nearly $1 billion of that money was from donations made privately by anonymous contributors.
Reporter Meredith McGehee from Commonblog notes that CBS
Chief Executive Officer Les Moonves reported CBS profits will climb $180
million this year due to political advertising.
“’Super PACS may be bad for America,’ Moonves said, ‘but they’re very
good for CBS.’”
As we roll into 2014, the McCutcheon decision will likewise
boost eaernings; moreover, the amounts of cash headed to major affiliates in
2016 may become absolutely mind-boggling.
CBS may be trading a bit down this week and last, but just wait until
late summer and early fall.
If there is an answer to this judicial scandal and our
national dilemma, some method to at least shed some light on all this dark
money, the solution may exist in the very words of the decision makers on the
Supreme Court and the most unlikely and least exertive commission in
Washington.
Within the 30 page majority opinion paper by Justice Kennedy
in the Citizens United case is the sentence, “Disclosure is the
less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.” In other words, money may be used to
influence, but those who influence can and should be identified.
Michael J. Copps, former head of the Federal Communication
Commission is quick to support disclosure as an important and immediate answer
to Citizens United and, now, McCutcheon.
And he reminds us and anyone else willing to
listen – the law is already there to do this.
It just needs be enforced.
Section 317 of
the Federal Communications Act (47 USC § 317) requires identification of any
on-air commercial – political or otherwise.
Any advertisement – even one with
Diane Rauner in a blue house dress promising she is a Democrat – must also
“fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person or persons, or
corporation, or committee, association or other unincorporated group, or other
entity” paying for them.
Copps asserts, “If a special interest group calling itself
Citizens for Purple Mountain Majesty and Amber Waves of Grain is a front group
for a chemical company refusing to clean up a toxic dump or an energy company
looking to buy friendships on Capitol Hill, the law says we need to know
that.”
All that is necessary is the enforcement of a legal statute
already on the books. So, how does this
happen? Mr. Copps explains that such enforcement
could take place in 90 days or less if necessary. It just takes some push by people interested
in forcing the FCC to do something about it.
And no time is better than right
now.
Recently Obama appointed venture capitalist Tom Wheeler,
whom Obama dubbed the “Bo Jackson” of the communication world as leader of the
FCC. Recent decisions indicate a leader
of the FCC interested in assisting internet providers with increasing
fees. Another appointee, Michael
O’Rielly is a former Republican Senate staffer.
But Common Cause has been supportive in hoping these two new
commissioners will invigorate the Commission to do more than rubber stamp
communication industry transactions. Perhaps
we can assist in this?
Maybe you’d like to consider contacting the members of the
FCC to request they put some teeth back into a law that has remained silently
on the books. You can bet that the Koch
brothers and everyone else at Purple Mountain Majesty will provide a
not-so-gentle downpour of lawyers and arguments, but the Supreme Court has
already indicated the direction for disclosure as acceptable. Let’s get started now.
Email and phone your Senator or Representative now. Contact the current members of the FCC and
ask them to grow some fortitude and put the law 317 into effect before November
2014, and certainly before 2016.
Email to Tom Wheeler, Chairman FCC:
Email to Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/mignon-clyburn-mail
Email to Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner FCC:
Email Ajit Pai, Commissioner FCC:
Email Michael O’Rielly,
Commissioner FCC:
Even as a very young reader, I knew something was dreadfully
wrong with Alice in Lewis Carroll’s book about falling through the looking
glass.
Chief among them was the lack of struggle Alice seemed to
have in drinking an unidentified liqueur or in snacking on a small morsel of
obviously tainted bread. In each case,
these offerings included invitations to imbibe or snack.
Quite honestly, as a kid I ate most everything I found –
even while hiking with other kids in landfills, but we knew better to ingest
anything marked “eat me.” And we’d have
smashed any bottle inscribed with “drink me.” Even in my dreams, I was
never so compliant.
Not so today. In
America, we swallow almost anything anyone gives us. Especially not-so-subtle electronic messages from cloaked
and shadowy characters who promote political candidates. And, like in Alice, we don’t know who they
are and - thanks to the Supreme Court - how much they’re giving to promote the
candidate. Let’s start enforcing Rule
317 in the FCC code of laws. Make the
call.
