Yes

by Steven Rosenberg

Created on: January 19, 2012

While I disagree with the "corporations are people rationale" of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision I do believe its impact will decrease in the near term.  The republican primary "show" does not reflect well on our democratic process.  Candidates disavow SuperPAC ads placed support them or attack their opponent reveals the infancy of the current SuperPAC scheme.  While republicans scorch each other with deceptive fraudulent content, imagine what the General Election will bring.

As I recall the last election cycle, critics of President Obama were not reticent about calling him any number of derogatory terms.  I do not believe the tenor of the next election will improve.  Nevertheless, I find the Citizens United decision to be one of the few of the Roberts Court that increase freedom, rather than limits it.  The solution to the excesses of the SuperPACs may be for Congress to enact reasonable regulation that is not inconsistent with unlimited corporate funding of political SuperPACs.

While their is a constitutional basis for this extension of freedom of speech, it cannot be said that disclosure requirements imposed upon SuperPACs would be unconstitutional.  Full public disclosure will inhibit some speech that is deemed too partisan.  Repercussions in the marketplace from consumers who "vote with their dollars" does not violate constitutional mandates.  If commercial considerations moderate corporate partisanship; a prudent corporation would resist the alienation of a portion of the electorate that may reject their politics.  There is still the freedom of choice every consumer has to reflect their approval, disapproval, or indifference to SuperPAC contributions.

Imagine a Wisconsin corporation that was strongly supportive of their governor's controversial public union battle.  While they would always have had a right to express support outside the scope of an election, good business practice would mitigate against taking a position unpopular with a substantial percentage of their customer base.  This is not a hypothetical scenario. 

Target Corp., while generally supportive of Gay and Lesbian customers, refused to grant equal status to same sex couples in their employ.  The reaction in the marketplace among heterosexual consumers caused a rapid re-evaluation of their policy.  

In conclusion, while corporate players have always been able to contribute as individuals to advance their corporate interests, they are now able to do it as corporations.  Not only have corporations been elevated to human status, limitations on contributions have been eliminated.  While past campaign finance limited the contributions of individuals the limitations could only be enforced by disclosure of contributors.  Where the SuperPAC  revolution has gone most astray is the secrecy now associated with campaign contributions that are unlimited when they are "once removed" from their beneficiaries.  Full disclosure would allow the public to regain an element of control, the power of free choice to mitigate against corporate, SuperPac excess.

Learn more about this author, Steven Rosenberg.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.