IN A RATIONAL world, November’s election would have finally ended the left’s hysteria over the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. From the howls of liberal outrage that greeted that 2010 ruling, anyone would have thought the court had condemned Democrats to electoral defeat as far as the eye could see.
Time magazine grimly predicted that American democracy would never be the same: “Now ExxonMobil or Walmart can simply go into the district of a member of Congress who is giving them a hard time and spend as much money as it wants to defeat him.” President Obama pronounced Citizens United “more devastating to the public interest” than anything he could think of. If Democrats in Congress failed to overturn the ruling, Senator Charles Schumer warned, “we will have let the Supreme Court predetermine the outcome of next November’s elections.” Liberals compared the case to one ugly archetype after another: “Watergate.” “Plessy v. Ferguson.” “Dred Scott.”
Comments
"Why are Democrats still obsessed with Citizens United?"
To paraphrase the old saying that if you have to ask the price you probably can't afford it, if Jacoby has to ask the question (even if the headline itself was the creation of an opinion page editor), he'll never truly understand the other side of the argument.
maybe the other side of the arguement has no merit unless you are philisophically locked into a dark corner.
Jacoby has got a case for why Citizens United is not big deal ... do you have a response?
Sounds like Jacoby is still bitter that all that money FAILED. It must be nice to be a mouthpiece for the well connected. I'm sure it pays well. How about this to paraphrase an old saying.... There is no limit to how much corruption unlimited funding can do.
Jeff, get ready for a barrage of personal attacks. Few, if any will try to refute the substance of your column. Instead the kindhearted, compassionate lefties will chose instead to demean and vilify.
It's barely 7 am in the morning, and several posters here have already rendered your analysis to be factually incorrect. The question is, in the interests of intellectual integrity, are you willing to publicly acknowledge that?
Muggmann, I am genuinely shocked at the civility so far, especially in light of the comments to previous Jacoby columns.
Why do I suspect that this amendment would not apply to Labor, public unions and other Democratic groups? Or that it would tilt the field towards one?
What is it about the corporate structure of a 503c corporation that doesn't inherently have the same problems as corporate money from a private company? Both are about getting your propoganda out.
When politicians start using the term "peoples" , I get nervous. It's like bank commercials that say they are here to "help" you.
I must be really stupid and ill informed. I shall go flog myself.
Ha, I knew you were right, but decided to look it up anyway. Of course the idea is to not touch unions. http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/sites/default/files/Peoples%20Rights%20Amendment.pdf SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Spot on Jeff. And yes, the angry rebukes from the left will dominate this page, with ugly and vitriolic attacks on Jeff. Scant few will offer reasoned debate. I think Jeff's concern about the potential overreach of removing rights from corporations is particularly scary. The left has never restricted the funding of groups which support their side-like the unions. And the union payoff is enormous, as they plow hundreds of millions of dollars into left wing candidates. Citizen's United simply levelled the plating field, and now unions are not the only organizations that can speak in politics.
Well I disagree with him Richmond and I don't think mine is angry rebuke. The problem with this decision is that it allows in addition to the corporation actions the actions of the very unions you oppose. Now I don't oppose unioins as they are an important part of the economy. However, a union is not a person either. Nor is the unions money speech. Jeff is wrong and the position he is taking is nothing more than "corporatism" which I do not support.
The comparison is the use of a grand sound system on the stage of public debate vs. none. Richmond is way, way off trying to scapegoat unions who make up less than 12% of the workforce, and political action money has to come from the workers who can think of better ways to spend their paychecks than trying to fend off the onslaught of big money.
Well Jeff, I'm not a lefty and a lot of people I know who aren't lefties don't like Citizens United. Unlike you, real "conservatives" I know don't like Citizens United. Why? Because it is another nail in the structure that is creating monopolies and oligarchies within the economic system. Just as many of us don't like the idea that "corporations" are people. Have you seen any of these decisions increase competition in the marketplace. Uh, No. Look at the gas pumps as you drive down the highway. Do you see variations in prices. No. Is there competition? No.
Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. That is Orwellian. It is not conservative. It does not lead to an open "free market" or open elections. I do not wish to see unions fronting campaigns anymore than I wish to see corporations or groups of corporations funding campaigns. It is anathema to the founding principles of the nation. You who bow down at the alter of 'strict constructionism" believe the founding fathers felt "freedom of speech" meant "freedom of money". I don't think so.
There is, was and never will be anything conservative about the Citizens United decision. It was a decision built for plutocracy not for Democracy.
Unions do not want to ask members for political action money. They are forced to in order to fight the huge concerns that threaten their existence.
The issue isn't whether unions are forced to or not the issue is should the unions or corporations be allowed to - I don't think so. The decision is based on the tortured presumption that "corporations" or "unions" are people which on its face is absurd. Then to twist it further, the suppostion is the founding fathers thought "sppech was money". I can find no basis for that in fact the founding fathers seemed to express a great deal of concern regarding "monied" interests.
I'm not anti-union, but I dislike this decision at its very core.
"Yet all those additional dollars, a Washington Post analystconcluded, had no discernible effect on the outcome of most races" THIS TIME. No discernible effect THIS TIME. And we were lucky, in my opinion to some degree, and it was too damn close for comfort. And it really is a terribly, twisted, diabolical thing they do. They use their money to try to get votes from the very people their policies do the most harm to. And by the time they wake up, like those 44,000 people in Maine who had their Medicaid nebefits cut by their Tea Party governor, it's too late. You see, most of the people in the lower income bracket, contrary to scum like Paul Ryan, are actually working so hard, and so many hours just to survive, thet don't have the time to pay attention to the details and fine print behind all the politcal b.s. All they hear are slogans and snipets, sung by the right wing media, talking about "being an American", Family Values. "hard wrokers", "takers versus makers" and they think. "yeah. I'm on their side". That Supreme Court Deision is EXACTLY on a par with Dred Scott, and Markey is RIGHT ON THE MONEY SAYING SO, AND TRYING TO GET IT REPEALED. he exent to which the right wing is trying to take away the vote of the poor people, and "de=Democratize" the country is appalling. First this decision, and then the tacticks employed by all the Republican Governors and other officials during the last eection to obstruct the vote. You guys are so PATENTLY EVIL, and againt the principles this country was founded on, it's truly disgusting.
....and I've said it before, in my opinion Rush Limbaugh (and his offspring Fox News, Glen Beck, etc.) is the single most harmful and poisonous virus to infect this country in the last 40 years.
Hey gr8te, occasionally I hit the wrko button in the car to see what they're up to. I heard this guy Levin spouting spouting the most vile, slimy accusations about the Hagel nomination. It reminded me of HItler spitting vitriol into the micrphone in the old German newsreels.
The rise of Super-Pacs has sent the power of the nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations to the moon. It's bad because it supports such a small segment of the population.These groups can be made up of rich family and friends. The independent nature is a total joke. There is no mechanism to know where the money is coming from. Politicians won't be making decisions based on what their constituents want but on what their corporate sponsors want; we're already crossed that line. The evidence of the ill-effects won't be measured by one election cycle. Many on the right don't favor it. Jacoby is making quite a reach to assume they all do.
Why is Jeff Jacoby still writing?
Thank you for proving my earlier comment.
This comment has been removed.
Citing one election does not prove the case. The inescapable facts are that more money, from fewer sources, does nothing to enhance the breadth or quality of political debate. In time it results in fewer, louder, voices, the impact of individual voters is overwhelmed, and their own consumer dollars are turned against their own best interests. A libertarian may see this state of affairs and simply shrug, and when I put on my laissez-faire hat I do too, but when I step back I remember I am part of a society, one with a Constitution that at least pretends to equality. When I use that perspective I see a court decision that puts a large, powerful group on the same footing as an individual as fundamentally, undemocratically, wrong. My final measure of Citizen's United, or any law or decision is, and must always be, 'do I want my children living in a world where this is the law of the land?' When I ponder the long term consequences of CU, rather than the results of a single election, my answer is an emphatic and unwavering "NO!"
the decision was not about money
As previously stated, feel free to shout down the well.
The Democrats are nothing but hypocrites. Allowing the Unions to dump cash on their candidates is A-OK for them, and having Richard Trumpka brag about his daily contacts with the White House is seen as a natural right. What trash! Frankly, everyone should be concerned about the prevalence of so much money that dominates the political process and leads to too much negative advertizing and demeaning of decent people who choose to run. And how do the Dems rationalize the Hypocrite-in-Chief's offer of access to him for the meager payment of $500,000. Are you kidding me? Do we have a President or a Despot. The next thing you know is that he will be selling indulgences. Bottom line - stop whining, Democrats - you look and sound like your mascot.
This comment has been removed.
I am not your brother and your remark tells us all we need to know about you.
True to Heritage Foundation logic, Mr. Jacoby picks exceptions to make the rules. Single handed funders like the Koch Brothers, the Melons, or the Coors are not involved in just one election. Elections have to be close enough, and candidates palatable enough to make this monied onslaught work. I am sure the Kochs Team does not interefere much in most Texas or Mississippi elections. This excess cash is also used to defeat laws that are contrary to the public interst(ALEC anyone?). The purpose of the Jeff Jacobys of the world is not to make cogent arguments, but to exhaust the opposition with endless out of context or completely false facts. As for the humanity of corporations this is a totally specious concept. Corporations are products or an outcome of human effort much like a washing machine or an automobile. To give such organizations the same rights as something that has actual human organs defies logic.
What facts (as opposed to opinion) does Jeff offer that are false? You've just accused Jeff of repeatedly offering "completely false facts." Now let's have some examples, with the "truth" offered to prove Jeff's facts were false.
Fred: I have pointed these out repeated on his columns. You can go into the archives of the Globe and look for my moniker. Today's column is a good start by the way. You can do your own research since if this commenter presented such facts, I have the feeling you would still not be convinced.
In days gone by, the Record/American had a columnist who would vilify Ted Williams from time to time. This always created great outrage, and "the Colonel" kept his job. Could it be that is what is happening here ? Is our outrage at the ideas in this column "taking the bate". Is Jacoby sitting in his office laughing like hell ?
You are correct, that's why you don't see him interacting with commenters. He probably doesn't believe his own stuff.
I don't believe for a minute that Jacoby believes most of the stuff he writes. I think he writes to bait people and get a discussion going, which is healthy, and appreciated. The guy is obviously smart, and being smart is completely inconsistent with many of the so-called "opinions" he expresses.
The fact that the money can be given anonymously is a huge problem. The fact that Republicans have consistently fought against reporting requirements for donors tells you what this is all about.
Seems to me neither the left or right can point to any significant loss due to Citizens United. So does that make it a good ruling? What the ruling did do was escalate the money war so that, in order to get to the finish line or even get in the race at all with any chance of winning, a candidate has to have tremendous funding. This is the problem, not whether or not "non natural persons" can fund campaigns. Our beloved democratic process has been hijacked by Big Money, and yes, that means Unions too. I agree that allowing corporations to fund candidates actually leveled the playing field more than not. The answer? I think it lies in 100% transparency. Full disclosure. NOT in fine print and NOT with the super-fast talking voice at the end of the commercial saying who/what was responsible. Every dollar from a "non-natural person" or over a certain amount from any source needs to be published for all to see. This way if Exxon, Warren Buffet, T. Boone Pickens or the Teamsters is behind a candidate or an issue, everyone interested enough to check it out will know it, especially the media.
"Why are Democrats still obsessed with Citizens United?" Simple, because it allows anyone with deep pocket to drown out voice of other people. And anyone who cares about democracy of this nation *should* be concerned.
Sure, it didn't work. But does that make it "good"? How? So now we allow massive spending from corporations. This results in even more atrocious political ads polluting our TVs, radios, newspapers, etc etc. It allows the few (major corporations) to have a much larger voice than the many. Why wouldn't you want to limit the influence of the few over the many? In what world do we want to the filthy rich to have even more sway than they already do in our daily lives? I would argue we need even more limitations on campaign financing, not less. I can't think of a single valid reason to find this decision to be positive in any way whatsoever. And you certainly didn't provide me with any.
Remember when John McCain was, pretty much by himself, trying to champion campaign finance reform?? I really liked the guy then, he seemed to have character, and I was looking for that guy to emerge against Obama. Don't know if would have voted differently, because of that one position, but I admired the guy back in those days. WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENNED TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, FOR GOD'S SAKE?!
Gr8te--they decided that the most effective way to drum up support was to rile up the part of the party most susceptible to riling up, by going further and further right. When, due to gerrymandering and other political manipulations, they end up unable to get nominated without presenting themselves as the most right-wing extremist of the bunch, you end up with a bunch of right-wing extremists either failing to get elected, like the whole field of GOP nominees for president this year, or getting elected and helping to break the system, as the TP have been doing for the last 2 years. It's really self-destructive of the GOP, but their short-sighted vision for "what will it take to get back in power" seems to have blinded them to the inevitable results of their choices. At least until (potentially) right about now, after finding themselves so shocked that their reactionary stances didn't sweep Obama out in a landslide. And no I don't limit short-sightedness to the right, btw. There are any number of cases where Dems have made changes to political rules to benefit themselves, only to be surprised when the GOP returns to power and uses the changes 10 times more strongly to impose their will on the left. If only people were willing to start looking at consequences beforehand....
if you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed
if you read the newspaper you're misinformed
- Mark Twain
In the opening Citizens arguments in front of SCOTUS, the DOJ litigator was asked if the existing campaign finance laws at that time gave government the power to ban a political book in particular cases. The litigator grudgingly said the government had that power but would not use it. This admission scares me a heckuva lot more than the Citizens outcome does.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that if the Citizens United decision did not produce the overwhelming Republican victories Jeffypoo so desired, why isn't he clamoring at the top of his voice for its repeal? Surely there must be other strategies to favor one party over the other? The reason Citizens United was a bad decision has already been elaborated by attaturk, stm37 and others; the electoral process is subverted and taken over by the money train.
The biggest giver the last election cycle was the SEIU, a union. And please, no nonsense about unions being only 12% of the workforce. What % of the workforce do the conservative super PACS comprise? It's a lot less than 12% (which is still a big number capable of generating a lot of dollars.)
and that does not evewn count the $ at the local level
The republibans want to go back to the good old days when buying elections was common. Since they have a conservative Supreme Court buying elections is back in vogue. What's next on their agenda, a return to segregation?
Like in Chicago?
Citizens United is anti-democratic at its core. And it's even more effective in swaying outcomes at the lower level where there is less attention to massmedia doing any 'fact-checking'. That's been the Republican strategy since at least the 80's - blanket the airwaves with half-truths that favor their viewpoint. Buy up available radio stations so now you can't go anywhere in the country without hearing their biased talk. It's pretty basic marketing - the biggest advertising department buys the most ads - and although there are a few exceptions (e.g. the Coke fiasco) that 'product' usually wins. And if one more person compares the power of unions with today's corporate power I'm going to demand they put some money down on a game between the BC football team vs the Pats!
Interesting you are so convinced unions do not rival corporations on the influence scale. On what do you base that opinion? In my view the large unions have done and will continue to do more for the democrats than any equal number of large corporations. And sorry, I won't take the Eagles v. Pats bet. As for unions in general, that's another debate entirely.
Just wait until a mega-huge-corporate entity starts supporting Democrats and liberals. Jeff will start howling like the windbag he is. Citizens United is anti-democratic. Corporations are NOT people. They can't marry, give birth, or do any of the other things flesh-and-blood humans can do. they can also spend vast sums to ensure the defeat of a politician, undermining a citizen's vote.
But then, i guess i'm not surprised. Jacoby loved Bush, who nearly destroyed out nation, loved the Iraq war, though it was illegal and immoral, hates unions, loves guns and supports just about every anti-American (ie right wingnut) position there is. But I guess it sells newspapers and pays his salary. I just wonder how he sleeps at night.
Question, Unions support candidates; can they marry, give birth or do any of the other things flesh and blood humans can do?
It's a yes or no question. I'll look for your response.
Jeffypoo, one answer to your inane question (mentioned above) is that corporations are not PEOPLE. Once you can jail one, hang one, execute one, or marry one, then maybe I;ll believe that corporations are PEOPLE. The Citizens United is a big nail in the coffin of our democracy.
The left has a delusional aversion to "big" corproations, "big" oil, etc. Its us vs. the man, man
So let's see: if Obama wins, Citizen's United doesn't matter? Because he opposes it?
The question of whether money can affect people's opinions is clear to me: one has only to look at multibillion dollar advertising campaigns for soda, shoes etc. To use the end result of a particular contest to determine whether it has any effect is ridiculous. If money has been proven to have no effect on elections, we should fully expect there to be less and less of it spent by billionaires who don't get rich cutting checks on ventures with no payback.
The right of every citizen to be able to express their opinion is obviously important. The extent to which the voting public is getting pushed to vote for candidates that are pleasing to the interests of those with the deepest pockets is troubling. Large donations present a conflict of interest to politicians. Who will pay for the free speech that would help the poor?
Where does the cutoff for free speech start?
This comment has been removed.
Ramble on, we just ignore you.
This entire thread seems to be a confused discussion of the issue. Before we support or criticize Jacoby's column or pretend to know what is happening in the area of political finance, we all need to spend a few minutes on what Citizens United does and just as importantly, does not do. This is a short piece that will provide everyone who reads it with the necessary info to discuss Jeff's column rationally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Good piece, well worth reading.
Thanks for posting sawmill - that's a good synopsis.
Don't these people ever get tired of "pick a side and fling mud as fast as you can - for as long as you can - or our country will DIE".
If my brother marries a man tomorrow and it doesn't cause strain on your marriage will you write a similar piece asking about the 'howls of conservative outrage'?
Are you:
1. bashing liberals for their childish hatred of 'big money'?
2. arguing for Citizens United?
3. arguing against the Peoples Rights Amendment (Kudos to you - it was a very clever segway)?
All questions are optional. After all, I'd hate to upset the left/right love fest you and your readers love to wallow in. But who care's, it sells papers!!
Jeff's question basically seems to be the equivalent of saying, "hey, that bus didn't fall apart today, so clearly it's silly to be worrying about a cracked frame". Frankly, the fact that the vast amounts of money the wealthiest corporatists used to back the right-wingers this election cycle (and their vast shock that it failed) really speak more to the absolute unelectability of anyone the right seems interested in putting up for nomination any more. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that there was even a contest at all is a sign how disruptive the results of Citizens United are. With one of maybe 2 not-completely-nutjob candidates barely scraping out the nomination, then repeatedly lying, then doubling down on his lies almost every single time he was confronted with them... and somehow never being held accountable for his egregious untruths... the fact he was only a few % below Obama scares me.
"Frankly. the fact that the vast amounts of money the wealthiest corporatists used to back the right-wingers this election cycle (and their vast shock that it failed) really speak more to the absolute UNELECTABILITY (caps are mine) of anyone the right seems interested in putting up for nomination anymore". So true and seemingly so obvious, yet they still don't get it. They continue to think there is nothing wrong with their positions and policies, but rather how they communicate those positions and policies. Can they REALLY be that stupid and blind?
We hold these truths to be self evident that corporations are not people. Just like municipalities are not people. And leases are not people. And countries are not people. The Right spends so much time supposedly defending the rights of the individual but in Citizens United they are stomping all over it they just don't seem to see it.
For people who seem so rabidly worked up about the concept of redefining marriage (because they're against homosexuality, even though they're forced to pretend they're upset about marriage being special), they seem pretty blase about redefining "person"--now people are anything from a single fertilized cell to a completely self-serving corporation.
On a tangential point, this columnist uses terms like "left's hysteria", "liberal outrage" and "hyperventilating" to describe the left's opposition to Citizen's United. Perhaps. But if you consider that the decision abruptly terminated almost fifty years of efforts by our politicians to limit the excessive influence of money on our politics, perhaps a little hysteria was warranted. As Mr. Jacoby sees it, the last fifty years trying to clean up the campaign system was wasted energy because there never was a problem in the first place.
If money spent on campaign advertisements has no effect on voters, as Mr. Jacoby states, why does Corporate America ante up hundreds of millions of dollars every presidential election?
But on another point, this columnist sings loudly that Citizen's United had no effect on this past presidential election. He then jumps to the hasty and unwarranted conclusion that Citizens had no effect on the voters and never will have. But that may be because the Republican Party fielded such a dishonest, unprincipled, lackluster presidential candidate and the Party itself moved way past most people to the far right. It may have had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars unleashed by the corporations to influence the last presidential election.
One instance does not determine history's future.
I am trying to figure out what they are bellyaching about too. Billionaire Bloomberg has influenced an election in Illinois with his money. Is that what the libs want, filthy rich libs running around the country buying elections?
I'm not crazy about Bloomberg spending a large amount to influence elections, and nor about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spending even more.
How does that equate? What are you talking about? Liberals making some attempt to level the playing field doesn't mean they want to do it or approve of the situation.
Election campaigns that require hundreds of millions in spending are not in anyone's interest in my opinion. It means only the super wealthy or those with super wealthy friends can even consider running for a major office. It compromises the democratic process.
"History" Well I don't take to labels, but I don't want Bloomberg buying elections either. Money is not speech unless your name is George Orwell. I would prefer to see a reasonable "cap" on individual donations. No PACS, no special interest 501c's, nothing except individual contributions set at even the current 2600.00. If you have sufficient public support that should be sufficient funding. Neither Obama nor Romney or any pol should need billions of dollars to run. Talk about wasteful spending. I don't want filthy rich libs or filthy rich conservatives or filthy rich anybody buying the election and the access to power that goes with it. If money buys access then my 2600.00 should get me to a state dinner fow whoever I support.
Thank you attaturk. I have a question: if corporations are considered people for the purpose of free speech what does that do to the concept of buying and selling corporations? You can't legally buy and sell people in this country.
Just as with speech and money, unless your Orwell, corporations are not people. Neither dthis decision nor the decision regarding corporations as people were legal decisions, these were political decisions and have had extremely detrimental effects to the politcal body and the economy.
Money talks, and that's why corporations are allowed to have a voice. Therefore they are people. Pretty stupid, isn't it?
It's important that the Globe have a conservative voice on its opinion pages, but, with decline of newspapers throughout the country, one would think that the Globe could tap a more rational and thoughtful conservative columnist. Leaving aside ideology, the claptrap routinely offered by Jacoby is astonishingly shallow.
Citizens v United dramatically distorted the 2012 election cycle. There is good reason to make a serious effort to reverse it.
Good point. Ditto for John Sununu
The obvious question, which this column evidences, Mr. Jacoby, is why are *you* still obsessed with the Citizens United ruling? And more, why are you obsessed with those who don't like the ruling, calling them obsessed? Is that your judgment, that anyone who disagrees with you is obsessed? Or are you obsessed with those who disagree with you?
It's the law now. You got your way. So why does it bother you so much that the country isn't 100 per cent on your side?
George Soros....
The Koch Brothers. There are plenty of sleaze bags on all sides of the spectrum.
This comment has been removed.
The power that Unions have is that they are large groups of voters that vote in blocks. The money they contribute is secondary.
The reason the Republican money did not have a measureable effect THIS TIME is because the canidates they backed were just terrible canidates that had very little chance of winning regardless. Next time they my smarten up and nominate less wacky and/or smarter canidates. Then the relative amount of funds available to each canidate sure as heck could determine many races.
This comment has been removed.
That's why I used (or meant to) the word "may".
as usual, there are many glaring examples of sophistry, false assertions and/or bad logic in jacoby's article. One example is his assertion that “a private university — not a natural person — could be required to start classes with a prayer,”. While jacoby doesn't bother to say who can so require, presumably he doesn't mean the government because the government can never assert religion, through a "person" or through some kind of non-person, non-coperate entity because that would be the "establishment" of religion.
So he must mean that the college itself can so require. However, a private college already can require that a class start with a prayer. As can, an do, private high schools. For better or worse, that is what private, as opposed to state action, means.
Something is wrong with the universe... Jacoby makes sense. Many pundits have noted the failure of Republican PAC money in the last election.
I think if it has to be law at least the names should be public for groups ( people ? ) so that factor of knowing who is "speaking" is part of the equation that helps us to come to a decision. I can't remember if it was just rumor or honestly revealed information that Sheldon Adelson almost single handedly kept Newt Gingrich in the Republican Primaries for what I believe was longer than he should have, would have if relying on pre-Citizens United fund raising. We at least knew where the money was coming, who was donating. And whether from Soros, Adelson, Bloomberg or other very wealthy individuals, unions, or groups, it is obscene. I also concur with those who have accurately pointed out that this is one election cycle. The experiment goes on.
Jacoby quotes Kent Greenfield very selectively. The actual article can be found if you google Kent Greenfield Citizens United. Professor Greenfield says, among other things, that "The reason why corporate political speech is so corrosive to democracy is that the benefits and prerogatives of the corporate form are marshaled to bolster the speech of a tiny sliver of the financial and managerial elite." He goes on to propose major reforms to corporate governance that would make corporations more accountable to employees and small shareholders rather than simply to CEOs and a few large shareholders. It is worth reading.
I disagree with Jacoby's argument, which fails to take into account the fact that major missteps by the GOP this round alienated big swaths of voters, including many women who were appalled by the candidates' opinions on legitimate rape, birth control, "sluts", etc. In a race with more evenly balanced, sane candidates, advertising spending by corporations could easily tip the balance by shouting down the voices of real people. Are we comfortable having our marketplace of ideas turned over to those with the most money? Who wins and who loses in that America?
Why are Democrats still obsessed with Citizen's United? Because it was just a flat out wrong decision that makes corporations people. Corporations are not people and they should not be allowed to have the opportunity to unduly influence elections. Whether they were successful or not in the last presidential race is immaterial. What I worry about is the undue influence on local and state politics and the further dilution of voting rights through bad legislation at the state level. More and more states are enacting laws to try and disenfrancise the poor and those without influence. More and more states are gerrymandering to try to advantage one party over another. This is the biggest threat to our democracy. Citizen's United allows an undue influence in our democracy that whether or not it was used effectively so far does not mean it won't be in the future.