Free political spending taints campaigns

By Katherine Jenson     2/4/10 6:00pm

Is it constitutional to limit corporations' spending on presidential and congressional campaigns? This is one of the fundamental questions of federal campaign finance laws. It is a decades-old question and has generated much debate and rancor.On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court provided a firm answer, and with a 5-4 vote declared, "No."

In the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and labor unions - perhaps even foreign-based companies - can spend freely on U.S. political campaigns. While this does not include direct donations to political candidates, it does allow these entities to pour money into the already ridiculously well-funded circus of national political campaigns.

Jon Stewart highlighted this new decision in a Jan. 25 episode of "The Daily Show." His skit featured the E*TRADE baby opposing abortion. Similar corporation-sponsored political advertising could easily allow automobile companies to fight for a candidate antagonistic to labor unions, or it could enable the Geico cavemen to advocate discrimination against homosexuals, and thus encourage Americans to vote for a similarly aligned candidate. Well-placed, well-funded advertisements can strongly influence public opinion, and truth is never required.

---

---

Thanks to Citizens United v. FEC, I see a future of even more irritating and misleading video ads, reminiscent of those of the Houston Business Channel. Even more insulting to the American public would be campaign videos like a recent offering against Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee, an easily YouTube-able video. Some memorable quotes: "Harold Ford looks nice, isn't that enough? Terrorists need their privacy! When I die, Harold Ford will let me pay taxes again. I met Harold at the Playboy party! Harold took money from porn movie producers. I mean, who wouldn't?"

This video, created by the Republican National Committee, was labeled by critics as "a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment" from former Republican senator Bill Cohen of Maine, and it worked - the advertisement destroyed Ford's lead in the race and killed the good chance he had at the Senate seat. Bob Corker, the opposing Republican candidate, asked his own party to remove the ad, and was denied. Now, thanks to the new Supreme Court ruling, we can expect such underhanded tactics not only from such nationally recognized political bodies as the RNC, but from the corporations to which we are so devoted, like Target or Starbucks.

Additionally, I predict we'll see even more slanderous telemarketing. In the 2000 Republican primary campaign, John McCain was subjected to an intense and sometimes-anonymous, sometimes-Bush-sponsored smear campaign. These messages suggested that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, or that he himself was homosexual, again playing to racist and homophobic sentiments. Some advertisements at the time also accused him of being a North Vietnamese "Manchurian Candidate" and suggested that his wife was a drug addict. Such a smear campaign is possible only with money, and thanks to the sudden loosening of corporate funding restrictions, such money will now be in even greater supply than ever before, especially from the wealthiest corporations.

Worst of all, I expect to see even more dismally cynical comparisons to contributions to American charitable organizations and foreign aid. In 2008, USA Today reported a nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that $2.4 billion had been spent on political campaigns in 2008 alone. I am at a loss to find similar expenditures for any two given people in one year.

I've certainly often heard that more than one billion people live on less than $1 per day, starving, dehydrated, sick, uneducated and forced into warfare, slavery and human trafficking. How many of these social injustices could be fought with another $2.4 billion? How responsible are we, that we fund so much misleading, ignorant, racist, homophobic and propagandist resume-padding for a four-year job? How much additional money do our nation's corporations, and perhaps those of other countries, need to contribute?

I'm not excited at all by the future prospects of free political spending by corporations and unions in presidential and congressional campaigns. Our lovable commercials may soon inspire us to do more than shop; they may tell us how to vote.

Katherine Jenson is a Lovett College sophomore.

---