Letter to the Editor

October 25, 2010

Dear Sir;

I am writing in regards to Jim Scheef’s “Circuit Rider” column in the November 2010 issue of dacs.doc. In his column Mr. Scheef writes:

“Lately, every election seems to be the most important ever and while that may sound trite, it is true this time again. From the news and all the advertising on television, you would think this election is about taxes and big government. Well, you would be wrong. This election is about the Supreme Court. Back in January, the Justices nominated by Bush 43, who pledged they would abide by settled law and would not be “activists on the bench”, overturned nearly a century of precedent and ruled that corporations have the same rights to political speech as an individual.”

This is false; the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United did not overturn a “century of precedent” as Mr. Scheef contends… As Linda Greenhouse explained in her New York Time blog on January 27, 2010, the Court’s decision doesn’t reverse a century of law:

“The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.”

All the Court did in Citizens United was strike down a provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, which was enacted roughly 10 years ago. It did not change the century old rules prohibiting corporate contributions directly to political campaigns.

The only issue addressed by the Court in Citizens United was whether corporations -- or labor unions for that matter could broadcast “electioneering communications” -- radio or television ads that mention a candidate within 60 days of a general election or within thirty days of a primary election.

It’s also worth noting the Court previously overturned provisions of the same law in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) and Federal Election Commission v.Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007).

I doubt the Court’s decision in Citizens United will have much of an impact on elections. Contrary to popular belief McCain-Feingold did not remove so called special interest money from politics; it just moved it further into the shadows by forcing corporations and labor unions to hide behind hard to identify political action committees (PACs) and 527 groups rather than spending directly (and transparently) from their treasuries.

Sincerely;

Jeffrey A. Setaro