By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
Richard Posner, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit and arguably the country's most influential federal judge, is
also a prolific blogger. I feel pretty good about trying out new media
after a long career in old media, but I have nothing on Mr. Posner,
who's 73.
His recent post about Citizens United is important reading for anyone
interested in campaign finance regulation. In the 2010 case Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that
Congress cannot limit independent expenditures in political campaigns,
arguing that such expenditures are not donations so much as
expressions of preference. The Citizens United decision, as well as
lower court rulings and F.E.C. policies that rely on it, helped give
rise to super PACs — the supposedly "independent" groups that no one
in their right mind thinks are independent.
The Court, in all its wisdom, figured that the risk of corruption was
slight; the decision would merely allow people (people with a lot of
money, anyway) to voice their opinions as loudly and as often as they
liked. No big deal, it's just speech. Mr. Posner argues that the
justices were shockingly naïve. He writes that it is "difficult to
see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and
direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint. A super PAC
is a valuable weapon for a campaign, as the heavy expenditures of
Restore Our Future, the large super PAC that supports Romney and has
attacked his opponents, proves; the donors to it are known; and it is
unclear why they should expect less quid pro quo from their favored
candidate if he's successful than a direct donor to the candidate's
campaign would be."
The short version: contributions to super PACs have the same ability
to corrupt candidates as those made directly to candidates.
Instead of accepting the status quo, Congress could use this premise
(obvious to everyone but the justices) to enact new limits on
contributions to "independent" groups; it could invoke the
constitutional rationale that such contributions have the ability to
corrupt federal officeholders and government decisions.
By Congress I mean a hypothetical legislative body that's not
dysfunctional, not the one we currently have, which won't do a thing.
Short of broad action against unlimited contributions, there's not a
whole lot that can be done to improve the election system, despite the
best intentions of would-be reformers. A coalition calling itself New
York Leadership for Accountable Government has begun pushing for
public financing within the state, which is certainly a worthy goal.
But even if they get to a place where candidates can partially rely on
some kind of public bursary instead of going begging to big donors,
there's nothing to stop a big donor from interfering with the race
through a super PAC.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment