The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v FEC gives Republicans an unexpected and possibly transformative gift in the lead up to the 2010 mid-terms…. that is if Republicans are smart enough to recognize it as such and take advantage.
The decision almost certainly favors Republican interests, since corporations are certainly not going to line up in favor of Democrats. In recent years, Democrats have out-raised Republicans by significant margins and as of this morning, Democrats seemed poised to head into the mid-terms with the financial edge. No more. Businesses are already lining up to oppose the Obama administration and the Democratic members of Congress loyal to the President. The Chamber of Commerce, which filed an amicus brief in favor of the non-profit that challenged the FEC (as did the NRA), spent $36 million on advertisements and get-out-the-vote activities in 2008 and has already announced its intentions to organize a campaign infinitely larger and more aggressive than its previous effort. The Court properly applied the first Amendment today, and as a result, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to narrow the fundraising gap. Needless to say, Democrats are having a bad month.
Regardless of what you think of the Supreme Court’s decision, the laws governing the political landscape are radically different today than they were yesterday. Citizens United opened the floodgates that previously prevented corporations and unions from spending their general funds on campaign advertisements that explicitly advocate in favor of or against the election of a candidate. The decision did uphold disclosure requirements, but nonetheless, a great deal of potential advocacy money just became in play for candidates, and members of both political parties are already moving to respond to the decision.
The President, for one, ain’t exactly thrilled. He led the Democratic charge against the decision, stating that today the SCOTUS “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” and proclaiming his intention to “develop a forceful response.” He continued that “it is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans…. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
Senator Chuck Schumer is apparently already moving to attempt to pass some sort of legislation that might at least partially blunt the effects of the Court’s ruling prior to the 2010 election cycle. While Democratic objections may to some degree be philosophical, their reaction to the ruling is undoubtedly in part related to the timing of the decision. A humiliating and truly disgraceful loss in Massachusetts not only derailed the Democrats’ health care bill but it has also raised fears among Democrats that the 2010 mid-terms could be truly catastrophic. Larry Sabato notes that “it is likely that Republicans will gain at least 3-5 senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contest were somehow moved to January.” This decision has only served to further terrify Democrats.
Does the SEIU not count as a special interest? What about all the other special interest that wrote the Stimulus Bill and the Health Care Bill? Why does the President think he is above the law of the land?
The decision almost certainly favors Republican interests, since corporations are certainly not going to line up in favor of Democrats. In recent years, Democrats have out-raised Republicans by significant margins and as of this morning, Democrats seemed poised to head into the mid-terms with the financial edge. No more. Businesses are already lining up to oppose the Obama administration and the Democratic members of Congress loyal to the President. The Chamber of Commerce, which filed an amicus brief in favor of the non-profit that challenged the FEC (as did the NRA), spent $36 million on advertisements and get-out-the-vote activities in 2008 and has already announced its intentions to organize a campaign infinitely larger and more aggressive than its previous effort. The Court properly applied the first Amendment today, and as a result, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to narrow the fundraising gap. Needless to say, Democrats are having a bad month.
Regardless of what you think of the Supreme Court’s decision, the laws governing the political landscape are radically different today than they were yesterday. Citizens United opened the floodgates that previously prevented corporations and unions from spending their general funds on campaign advertisements that explicitly advocate in favor of or against the election of a candidate. The decision did uphold disclosure requirements, but nonetheless, a great deal of potential advocacy money just became in play for candidates, and members of both political parties are already moving to respond to the decision.
The President, for one, ain’t exactly thrilled. He led the Democratic charge against the decision, stating that today the SCOTUS “has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” and proclaiming his intention to “develop a forceful response.” He continued that “it is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans…. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”
Senator Chuck Schumer is apparently already moving to attempt to pass some sort of legislation that might at least partially blunt the effects of the Court’s ruling prior to the 2010 election cycle. While Democratic objections may to some degree be philosophical, their reaction to the ruling is undoubtedly in part related to the timing of the decision. A humiliating and truly disgraceful loss in Massachusetts not only derailed the Democrats’ health care bill but it has also raised fears among Democrats that the 2010 mid-terms could be truly catastrophic. Larry Sabato notes that “it is likely that Republicans will gain at least 3-5 senate seats in November. Even more startling, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, Republicans would do even better IF the general election were being held today. The Crystal Ball projects that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats if November’s contest were somehow moved to January.” This decision has only served to further terrify Democrats.
