CONNECT
United Re:public / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 18 July 2012
“What is more, corporate donations are often anonymous, even to shareholders, who technically own the company.”
Are You Paying for Those Annoying Super PAC Ads?
In 2010′s Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court said unlimited spending on elections by corporations was a constitutional right to free speech. Perversely, through public pensions, this ruling may lead to “compelled speech,” which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Just how, exactly, did this happen? According to the New York Times, public sector employees are forced to give a certain portion of their paychecks into a public pension system. That pool of money is then used, without their say, as an investment in some $1.15 trillion in corporate securities. Citizens United now allows those funds to be used to finance political speech which those may disagree with, resulting in a form of compelled speech.
What is more, corporate donations are often anonymous, even to shareholders, who technically own the company. This means that those who fund these corporations don’t even know whether or not they support the political causes their money is going to:
Contrast this situation with how the court treats political spending by unions. In many states, public employees are required to pay dues to a labor union. If the public employees union were to spend any of the money raised through dues on politics, the court has ruled, the dues requirement would amount to forced political speech and association. To prevent this First Amendment violation, the court has held that no union may use an employee’s dues for political purposes if the employee objects.
This judicial discrepancy is a wide open hole in First Amendment rights enforcement which the courts must address, according to Harvard Law Professor Benjamin Sachs:
Whatever the route to reform, however, public pension plans need to ensure that employees are not compelled to finance corporate political speech. Until they do, these pension funds will be vulnerable to the challenge that they are violating the First Amendment.
12 comments on "Are You Paying for Those Annoying Super PAC Ads? "
July 19, 2012 6:46am
No, corporations and unions are not natural people. They do not have the right to vote. Corporations and unions exist only by statute. People comprise corporations and unions, not the other way around! Executives and shareholders of corporations and leaders and members of unions are free to use their own personal assets to speak freely. Corporations and unions should not be allowed to influence elections to the exclusion of individual natural people. It's bad enough that corporations and unions buy congressmen after they are elected.
July 21, 2012 4:52pm
Grammatical correction to my July 19, 2012 9:46am post:
Corporations and unions comprise Natural people, not the other way around. In other words, corporations are made up of Natural people. [Incorrect: People comprise corporations and unions...]
July 18, 2012 6:11pm
Corporations are people and they can donate anonymously. Al Qaeda are legally investing to defeat Obama.
July 18, 2012 4:16pm
Corporations ARE people. Corporate employees and shareholders benefit when their corporations make big profits. Unions ARE people, too. Some unions are corporate employees who benefit when their corporations make big profits. Some unions are public employees who benefit when their legislatures raise enough revenue to pay them decent wages.
Smart environmentalists, healthcare workers, public employees, and others who don't like what corporations do will keep their money in their own poclets. Nodody is forcing anyone to contribute to politicians. The politicians only make them feel guilty if they don't.
July 19, 2012 8:13am
On the other hand, as an investor, I don't even know if the company in which I'm investing is spending money on political campaigns, lobbying, or direct bribery. If I put my money into a savings account, and the bank "invests" it by lobbying Congress for more tax breaks, is that forced speech for me? If my employer invests my 401K account in corporations that advocate policies that are bad for me but good for their industry, what does that do to my free speech? Don't I have a right to not advocate against my own best interests? If there's no disclosure, how can I even make the decision to pull my money from that investment?
July 21, 2012 5:00pm
NHsolarguy, you are absolutely correct. Somebody else should not make political speech with your money. Individuals should only be allowed to use money they own themselves, not what they control on behalf of somebody else, to make political speech. If like-minded people what to pool their money to speak in a chorus, I suppose they could do that but only with mutual consent and transparency.
The last time I looked, my fund prospectus said nothing about how the corporations it is invested in would use the money to support the political wishes of corporate executives. I gave no implicit or explicit consent.
July 20, 2012 6:01pm
Well, you could decide to invest ethically. Some nonprofits will help you figure out how to do this, and some mutual funds advertise that they invest only in ethical publicly traded companies.
For myself, mortgage lenders who weathered the crisis without going bankrupt and whose borrowers didn't default earned my trust, and they also pay big dividends! This rules out a lot of the bad guys, who figured prominently in the meltdown and keep on making news. Sometimes being ethical can be profitable and you don't have to worry about how someone else votes. I don't think it's too hard to figure out who is less evil, which is the best we can do these days.
July 18, 2012 3:09pm
the break down in comparison is if you do not lie what co is doing sell is alot dif from telling someone if you do not like the union quit however a stockholder should know who co gives $ to politically and charities
July 18, 2012 2:28pm
Just get Roberts to argue that: "Unions, like corporations, are people, too! Whee!"
;-)
July 18, 2012 12:47pm
The Supreme Court defended its decision saying that corporations and unions alike can donate unlimited money to PACs. In effect, employees and shareholders of the corporations are forced to relinquish money that could be theirs to the PACs, according to the wishes of the Board of Directors or CEO. I, as a shareholder in a mutual fund or an employee of a company, have no say in how much is donated and to whom. This effectively no different than if I were a member of a union. My opinion of the Citizens United ruling is that it is based on the most liberal interpretation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court, and it further corrupts our political system. The Supreme Court has been wrong on several occasions in the past, and in many cases it led to Amendments to the Constitution. It is time for another Amendment.
July 21, 2012 10:15am
Voters are too easily distracted by what the SCOTUS and Congress do.
Actually, SCOTUS made a shrewd observation about corporations and unions. Corporate shareholders are voting members of the corporation (1 share of stock = 1 vote) and have the option of selling out if they don't like what what they are paying for, so they give tacit approval to the corporation's political contributions. Union members are tied to the corporations or public sector entities that employ them, and the unions contribute to the candidates that they favor.
In both cases, no scorecard is needed to reveal who is contributing to whom for voters who are not corporate employees or union members. Also, no individual voter needs to contribute a dime to any political party, PAC, or candidate. Anyone who thinks that his/her $50 donation is important to a politician or the passage of a critical bill or constitutional amendment is truly stupid.
Also stupid are rules that prohibit public sector employees from signing petitions for state ballot initiatives that directly affect their lives, via taxes. Right-wingers have caused gridlock in several state legislatures by convincing gullible voters that all taxes are the same and that their legislatures should not be able to raise taxes without a 67% vote of the legislature. Legislators fear that voting to raise taxes will cost them their jobs, so the rare bill that gets approved by even a one-vote margin must go to the voters for approval. Result: no increase in revenue, public employees and programs are cut, and the whole system starts to fall apart, which is exactly what the 1% want.
This chicanery works only in states with no income tax, and that's why one-percenters are working feverishly to scuttle the state income tax in every state that has one. Only a few states don't have an income tax, but Missouri voters are on the brink of repealing its income tax, and the legislatures of several other states are watching closely.
You should watch closely, too, and be very afraid. Some of you may think this post is off-topic, but that's what the 1% wants you to think.
July 18, 2012 12:05pm
Whatever the super rich pays for eventually comes out of the pocket/mouths of the working people. They charge extra profit and eek the last drop from worker wages to pay for their desirable activities which are hoarding more money and concentrating more power for themselves at the expense of 99%. They have shrank the share of labor and increased theirs' progressively in the past 30 years and then blame the poor for laziness, lack of motivation, greediness, stupidity and what not....The SYSTEM is HIJACKED!