Citizens United (Against Other Citizens)
This disaster must be undone — but we need to go further.
In 2008, a conservative organization by the name of Citizens United produced a film tawdrily entitled Hillary: The Movie. Essentially a hitpiece on Hillary Clinton, this “documentary” became of legal contest and major controversy in campaign finance. The issue reached the Supreme Court, which overturned the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which barred corporations (and unions) from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. The net result of the BCRA was that corporations weren’t able to. However, in 2010, a 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court essentially said that a corporation should be allowed to bypass the traditional (read: regulated and limited) campaign finance system by creating and funding political action committees that can do and say things candidates can’t — effectively removing accountability from those candidates.
One can look up what exactly the Citizens United ruling is fairly easily, but it’s a bit harder to understand the ramifications. The essential net result is that corporations can (and therefore will) monetarily participate in elections. Beyond a few hoops that can fairly easily be jumped through with a lawyer’s assistance, their participation is unlimited. Steven Colbert really did his due diligence as a satirist by participating and therefore entirely exposing it.
But what is the end result?
Let’s start by defining the “buying demographic.” By conventional knowledge, it’s working men between 18–34 with a family. The Buying Demographic™ is what most products are typically marketed to, though many products are marketed to people who are tied to a man of that demographic. Cleaning products are transparently marketed to wives, for instance. As if wives are doing all the cleaning work because their 18–34 year old husband does so much work to provide for them that they shouldn’t be involved in cleaning. I’d assert that a great many companies — and certainly the ones that have been around a very long time — are operating on the assumption this is how they should market their products/services.
If you believed that, you would probably want a government that would back you up when you say or do anything.
That in mind, what would happen if Citizens United was gone and campaign finance were properly reformed? Without a doubt, we’d begin to see significantly more marginalized politicians and better representation. The way money is spent currently is to implement policy that is in line with corporations view of what works. That means catering to cis, white men between the ages of 18–34 (and anyone dependant on them in one way or another), which means supporting politicians that are popular with that group (and sub-groups). Corporations have carefully cultivated a market that depends on whiteness, binary gender and “traditional” values, and Citizens United gives them the power to keep the political system friendly to that market.
Why? How many corporations do you think are in a rush to fund anyone they can’t control — or worse, see as an outright threat? If, suddenly, corporations were not allowed to participate monetarily with political campaigns, either directly or through various shell corporations and non-profits, and the wealthy were required to donate as individuals with small max donation ceilings per election cycle… Well, it seems like someone with dark skin, different body parts, “weird” hair or no religious beliefs might actually have a chance.
Or if (god forbid) the only option was public campaign finance and every candidate had the same amount to work with, I’d argue you’d really start to see a political climate that actually looks like the electorate — and a much more engaged electorate, at that.
Irony seems to do a better job presenting itself in politics more than any other arena. In the Democratic presidential race, the candidate benefiting from this court ruling is none other than Hillary Clinton, whose fundraising from “outside groups” totals in excess of $117 million. The Priorities USA Action Super PAC is responsible for over $50 million of that alone, which the majority of comes from donations of over $1 million— and top out at $7 million. However, the maximum any individual may donate directly to, say, a presidential campaign is $2,700.
We need a woman for president and an equal ratio in congress — not just in regards to a cis male/female ratio, either. This means trans and NB politicians need to have a legitimate chance, too. Unless Hillary Clinton pledges to take on the Citizens United ruling in any way possible, I do not think she should be who we elect as the first woman president. A win by Clinton would be historic and I would most certainly celebrate the idea we finally managed to elect someone of a gender other than male — I have no doubts there. On simply that level, it would be amazing, but her policy on a more diverse political process is simply saying she wants to remove barriers. She does not address Citizens United unless pressed about it specifically, and even then gives soft answers. Not taking this issue on specifically it does not actually remove barriers for more diverse politicians to enter our system and have a real chance at even some degree of success.
I do not honestly think Citizens United is going anywhere if Hillary Clinton is elected. If she ends up being elected, I would love to eat those words.
Can Bernie Sanders defeat Citizens United? None of us know that; we know he desperately wants to, though. This is a central issue to his campaign, and however you view his campaign — as either tone-dead or the second coming — you have definitely heard about Citizens United from him. I’ll say he doesn’t always do a good job of making the case that it’s rulings like Citizen’s United that keep diversity out of politics, but he does know it. I’ve seen him make that case and it’s the truth. On top of that, almost as if to prove the point entirely, he has only taken donations from people. No entity can donate more than $2,700 to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.
I hope that viewpoint gets to sit in the chair. There will be a lot of argument, a lot of conflict, and ultimately important cases taken on by the Supreme Court — which we’re going to need a liberal justice who is against Citizens United to take it on. It’s not going to be easy and will be up in the air for a long time before anything gets done. Bernie Sanders will absolutely take on that task. If nothing else, he will do everything in his power as president and attempt to rally voters to work with him to end something that, frankly, he can’t end alone.
It will be up to us to show up in 2018 and take a majority in congress, whether we elect Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. We let Obama down in this respect and that’s why he was unable to accomplish a lot of what he wanted. If Hillary Clinton is elected and does take on Citizens United (having three SuperPACs suggests that she wouldn’t, bear in mind), she is going to need everyone behind her.
I don’t like that the person not taking money enabled by the Citizens United ruling, therefore acting more fervently against a Supreme Court decision that initially affected Hillary Clinton the worst is the person running against Hillary Clinton and not Hillary Clinton herself. Bernie Sanders doesn’t go a speech without mentioning getting money out of politics, whereas Hillary Clinton says “unaccounted for” money once every few speeches. I guess she wants money in politics, she just wants to know about it? That isn’t breaking down barriers so more people can participate in the political process.
More money in politics means less diversity in politics. Citizens United is a massive roadblock to a more representative elected government. There is no way around that. The more companies see it as a means to capture and control demographics, the more similar to their outdated “primary buyer demographics.” Whoever ends up in the White House, they need to act against Citizens United and for massive, sweeping campaign finance reform.
