The Most Technically Challenging Subject...

Hello again!

Over the past week my seminar class has been learning about what our professor called "the most technically challenging subject" we'll work with this semester. Namely, Campaign Finance Reform. It deals with what's called hard money, contributions directly to candidates, soft money, money used by outside parties to promote or weaken candidates without communicating with candidates, 501(c)4s, 5s, and 6s as well as 527s, the magic words, express advocacy and many many more terms which do indeed make it the most technical subject we've faced so far.

It's much more interesting to talk about points of view as opposed to talking about the subject matter itself. Recently, the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision which changed some things in the world of campaign finance. Most people think it means that corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates while individuals are limited by contribution restrictions. This is not true. In fact, corporations never could, and still cannot, donate any money directly to campaigns. What the decision did was validate that money is an amplifier for speech and that as long as corporations aren't donating directly to a candidate that can choose to spend their money for the election or defeat of any candidate.

An issue that arises in doing so is corporations risk alienating their workers and getting themselves involved in bad PR situations. For example, "Revelations that Target Corp. donated $150,000 to a group that is running ads backing conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage, continue to generate calls to boycott the company." Target, by opening donating to a candidate who holds certain social views that may not be in line with a large number of Target's workers or consumers is getting them in trouble.


One of our guest speakers this week, Leon Sequeira, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, believes that corporate spending on campaigns is not going to go through the roof as some suggest because of just the reason above. Companies don't want to get themselves wrapped up in social or policy issues if they don't have to because it could be very bad for their bottom line. Sequeira believes that their isn't enough spending in campaigning these days and thinks that the Citizens United decision will encourage people to get involved. He also believes that there should be no contribution limits for individuals donating to campaigns. Today, we all, as individuals are limited to donating $2400 per federal candidate per year. Without these limits a wealthy individual could donate a few hundred thousand dollars to a candidate that they support. Clearly, this could cause some unbalanced campaigning. Sequeira makes a good point, though. Candidates need to disclose their contributions and as much as they might want to take a huge donations which will guarantee them enough publicity to win, they could easily be attacked by their opponent for such a significant donation. As said in the movie "Thank you for Smoking" Sen. Finister: "I'm sure the fact that big tobacco is funding your research has no impact on your actions." Nick: "No, just as I'm sure campaign contributions don't affect yours."


On the other side of the argument is Gerry Herbert, Executive Director, Campaign Legal Center. He believes that Citizens United was a step in the wrong direction. In the decision, the Supreme Court suggested that corporations are like individuals. Gerry brought up some good points. Corporations have more wealth than individuals, they have limited liability, no lifespan, and they get tax breaks that the rest of us don't enjoy. Finally, while we are organic creatures, corporations are creatures of the state. If you want to form a corporation, you have to file paper work and the government has to approve. Gerry believes that this should mean that government gets to impose certain conditions on corporations that aren't imposed on individuals and this includes limiting their spending in support or opposition of candidates.


All in all, campaign finance is sticky business and best left to Congress and lawyers who have been specially trained!!


Join us next time for more fun!