US: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free (Market) Elections

On January 24th, the US Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, ruled to remove the remaining spending limits on corporate involvement in elections. The ruling has been criticized by many as a dangerous encroachment by the wealthiest corporate interests and an undermining of free, democratic elections. But even before the court’s decision, corporate cash remained a prime mover of both capitalist parties in Congress and the White House. The influence of the big banks, corporations and the wealthiest will always be a controlling feature of formal democracy under capitalism.

The January ruling was based on an appeal brought by Citizens United, a corporation formed to produce attack ads and other media. The company had produced a “documentary” on Hillary Clinton intended for the cable channels, which the Federal Election Committee refused to allow to be broadcast. While Citizens United’s case was simply for an overturn of the FEC’s ban, the Supreme Court decided to take things several steps further.

The court stated that, as the US legal system already recognizes corporations as “individuals”, and the US Constitution guarantees the rights to free speech and a free vote to all citizens (except those who have been convicted of felony -- 3.2% of the population), that therefore there could lawfully be no limit to the “free speech” of corporations. Specifically, the ruling allows for the complete “freedom” of any corporation to spend any amount on television, newspaper, Internet and radio advertisements, billboards, and for informational documentaries and other media.

So, by a turn of legal phrase, vast entities controlling huge amounts of wealth and resources, managed in the interests of a tiny number of big shareholders, which already play a controlling role in politics and government through an army of lobbyists, and with interests diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the US population (which is overwhelmingly made up of working class people), have been made no different from the rest of us!

The public anger at the court’s decision forced Democratic Party leaders to call for amendments to the ruling, such as requiring corporate ads to identify their sponsors. President Obama made a public condemnation of the decision and the Supreme Court on live television from the floor of the Senate during his State of the Union address (with the justices in attendance). Obama said of the ruling: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.”

This may sound good enough, but what is Obama’s own record with corporate financing? While much was made of the small, online donations given to his 2008 campaign, he also declined the option of public financing for his campaign and received the lion’s share of corporate backing. According to the Center For Responsive Politics:

“Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle. Looking at each party’s growth, however, Democrats will have collected 52 percent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this election cycle, compared to four years ago.”

According to the center’s website, contributions from business interests accounted for 72% of all contributions in the 2008 elections. The largest contributors are the finance, real estate and insurance companies, which together gave $373 million.

In 2008, there were 14,446 registered lobbyists. Here’s a short list of the biggest lobbies: Business associations, $183 million; Oil and gas, $168.4 million; Insurance, $164.2 million; Electric utilities, $144.4 million; Computer/Internet companies, $118.9 million. Not surprisingly, over the past year, the health insurance giants forked out their own mountain of cash -- $266.8 million in 2009.

For decades, the Labor Movement has raised money from the membership, canvassed and organized phone banks for Democratic politicians. Many believe our unions will be able to decisively influence Congress and the White House into passing legislation improving our wages, rights, conditions and funding for education, health and the other needs of working people. But, under capitalism, a monopoly of wealth is held by the bosses. And their wealth buys them influence greater than what could ever be bought by working people in the Democratic Party.

Should our unions continue to ask members to contribute to COPE and other political funds? We would say, yes, but with one very important qualification: Not a penny of union money for the bought representatives of big business, whether Democrat or Republican.

Our unions should instead use this money to run members as independent labor candidates and to build a mass party of labor.