First the gates. Now, the stampede.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations, unions and other organizations with political interests could basically spend whatever they wanted on ads that favored or opposed the election of candidates, it was obvious what the result would be: a dramatic ramping up of spending by those groups and political action committees to further specific causes and the candidates who support them. And as a result, there would be an increase in the overall costs of campaigns.
The case was called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and it will live in infamy in the minds of those concerned about special interest spending (and thus outsized influence) with regard to campaigns. And let it be said that this spending is not just the result of big-money special interests such as the health care and drug industries trying to undermine reform by supporting Republicans. Democrats are going to use these "super PACs"as well.
Corporations now can simply pour money into independent campaigns through various committees, and for them the game is no-limit. What possible chance will reformers and regulators have when industries that want to eliminate regulation or enjoy big tax breaks are like ATM machines with no limits on withdrawals? The answer: no chance.
Consider (hypothetically): Acme Pollution Inc. has had some nasty encounters with the Environmental Protection Agency. There were those fouled streams, and a couple of unfortunate little incidents that leveled the tops of mountains and resulted in considerable erosion and destruction of wildlife habitats. But by golly, the company is tired of getting picked on by the EPA and is going to fight back thanks to the Supreme Court. So here comes a million bucks to be used by the Fair Play political action committee.
And when the candidate (or candidates) fancied by Fair Play and others of like mind wins, bills will be introduced to curb the oversight powers of the meddlesome EPA.
Could such a scenario have happened under previous rules? Sure, but the difference in the money involved is like that between a heavy snowfall and an avalanche.
When big money pours into politics, a foul brew indeed is the result. It's made more distasteful by the fact that the money will go toward ads attacking one candidate and promoting another outside the umbrella of a particular candidate's campaign, where there are contribution limits and rules for disclosure of contributors. And the sponsors of the special interest ads will be shielded by phony, harmless-sounding names.
Quickly gone will be any remnants, and we'll acknowledge that perhaps there aren't many left, of those times when individuals could stuff a $5 bill in cardboard box at a rally and feel invested in good ol' democracy.
And what about when the campaign is over, and the candidate who relied on these "super PACs" is in office? Naturally, he or she will spurn the industries that funded the PACs in favor of good, populist government, right? If you agree, there's a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it.
Policy-making too often follows the special interest groups that pay to influence it. When specific industries target a certain candidate who speaks their language, they're not kicking in to groups that will advocate for that candidate or against an opponent out of a sense of altruism. They're investing. And betting on dividends.
