Question 2 and the Myths about Citizens United

Guest post from Professor Raymond J. La Raja of UMass Amherst and Professor Brian Schaffner of Tufts University.

With Election Day in just a few days, Massachusetts voters must make up their minds on three important ballot questions. Unfortunately too little attention has been paid to Question 2.  We have several concerns about it.

Question 2 seeks to create a commission that would propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision freeing corporate spending in elections. It would also define constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings and not collections of human beings (like corporations and labor unions).

This ballot proposal is likely to pass with overwhelming support from Massachusetts voters. It reflects an understandable exasperation with political campaigns that seem awash in money and negative advertising. While we endorse the sentiment, this measure is unwise.

Question 2 misdiagnoses the problem and offers a solution that is likely to backfire and thwart better representation in our politics.

It overlooks the fact that millions of dollars pouring into campaigns are not directly from public corporations but from individual billionaires. According to a recent report, business corporations provided just 6 percent of Super PAC receipts in 2016.  By contrast, wealthy individuals financed 68 percent of these free-wheeling organizations, which have no limits on fundraising or spending. The framing of corporations or associations as evil and individuals as the heroic lynchpin of American democracy will simply reinforce the power of politically active rich Americans.

Just look at the 2018 midterms. Over the course of this campaign season, Sheldon Adelson poured almost $90 million into Super PACs supporting Republicans, while Michael Bloomberg invested amounts exceeding $100 million in Super PACs to help Democrats take back the House. Trying to void the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment will not stop these wealthy donors from dominating elections.

But all of these donations don’t just give the wealthy unprecedented influence in politics, they also encourage partisan gridlock. Our research suggests that privileging individual donors in the campaign finance system tends to polarize politics because they are ideologically extreme compared to political parties and business PACs.

Of course, fears about the power of corporations are understandable. There have been times in American history when corporate monopolies exploited their influence to undermine policies that could benefit many Americans. To some, we are at that point again.

But eliminating Citizens United will likely not do what its proponents expect. Our research shows that the power of corporate spending in elections is overblown. Looking at all 50 states over several decades, we observed no differences in which parties won elections or whether incumbents stayed in office regardless of whether corporations could spend money or not.  Instead, corporate investments in politics are likely more important for lobbying to maintain the status quo in Washington and state capitols. To the degree that we try to push corporate money out of political campaigns, it is likely to move into lobbying, or submerge into “dark money” organizations that are not required to disclose donors.

We must also remember that associations play an important role in America. We have always bonded together in associations to push our causes. By broadly weakening associations, which includes labor unions, the average American stands even less of a chance against the wealthy.

If you want to address problems with money in politics, start with publicly financing the political parties. These organizations are highly transparent and accountable to the broader public. And they tend to elevate political competition by supporting challengers, unlike corporations which give to incumbents.

Our research also indicates that parties tend to back relatively moderate candidates compared to both interest groups and individual donors. And providing parties with robust amounts of public funds to complement private donations would make them less dependent on both corporate donors and wealthy extremists.

If Question 2 passes – and we think it will – the commissioners should consider a wide range of policy ideas that might reduce inequalities of influence and growing extremism in our politics. The ballot sponsors have prejudiced the outcome by assuming they have the answer, undoing Citizens United. Let’s hope the commissioners will broaden their lens. To a disillusioned public, we cannot afford to promise fixes that don’t work. It will only breed more cynicism and discourage civic participation.

 

 

Raymond J. La Raja a professor in political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Brian Schaffner is the Newhouse Professor of Civic Studies at Tufts University.  They are co-authors of Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail (U. Michigan Press 2015).