With campaign finance reform advocates led by The New York Times predicting the nation’s capital will soon be drowned in a flood of special interest influence money unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision, a look at the latest corporate lobbying data exposes their real problem.
The decision ruled that campaign finance laws making it illegal for corporations and unions to spend money on political speech advocating for or against congressional incumbents and/or their challengers are an unconstitutional restriction that violates the First Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy summarized the decision by saying “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
But what about all that “special interest money” that’s about to flood American politics? It’s already here, if you know where to look.
Data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) from corporate lobbying disclosure reports reveal that “while the U.S. economy had a tough year in 2009, the economy on K Street continued to boom.”
Topping CRP’s list is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent more than $79 million during the fourth quarter alone, and a 2009 total of $144.5 million.
It should be noted that the Chambers’ total includes lobbying at all levels of government, not just in Washington.
As an illustration of the immense sums spent by corporate interests on lobbying, CRP pointed to the health care reform debate, noting that:
“Many of the other groups attempting to influence the debate over health insurance reform also spent big during the final quarter of 2009 — and the year in general.
“The drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent $6.3 million on federal lobbying during the last three months of the year, bringing their total spending for 2009 up to $26 million. This represents an increase of about 30 percent over their spending on federal lobbying in 2008.
“Pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly also spent considerable sums on their lobbying efforts.
“Pfizer invested about 80 more in federal lobbying in 2009 than they did in 2008. During the fourth quarter of 2009, it spent $5.6 million on federal lobbying, for an overall total of $21.9 million.
“Amgen spent about $3.3 million on federal lobbying during the fourth quarter of the year, bringing its overall 2009 spending to $12.4 million. This represents an increase of more than 20 percent over their 2008 lobbying spending.
“For its part, Eli Lilly spent about $2.2 million on federal lobbying in the last quarter of 2009. Over the course of the entire year, the company spent $11.2 million, which represents a 10 percent drop compared to 2008.
“And the health insurance industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) also spent large sums on lobbying efforts this year. The group spent $2.5 million on federal lobbying in the fourth quarter, for an overall total of about $8.9 million. This represents a 17 percent increase over their lobbying spending in 2008.”
But if, as campaign finance reform advocates have long insisted, special interest influence corrupts elections, the same can be, and often is, said of lobbying Congress after elections, that it corrupts the processes of government.
So why not follow the logic the next step and recognize that, if money from special interests collectively corrupts, wouldn’t there are also be a corrupting influence when the same money comes from the individuals who make up the special interests?
In other words, the logic of campaign finance reform’s basic assumption leads irrevocably to the conclusion that all speech by any special interest should be banned, regardless whether it is delivered on behalf of a collection of individuals organized in a corporation or union, or by those individuals by themselves.
It’s a sort of whack-a-mole problem. Ban special influence speech (TV spots) here and it crops up over there via another venue (lobbying). Ban it over there, and it pops up in yet another place (background papers to legislative staff). Keep whacking and eventually you get …. silence.
That is why instead of trying to prevent political speech by some while allowing it for others the better approach is to respect the First Amendment, let everybody speak their minds, and make sure that there is maximum transparency about the process and its funding.
As CRP’s Sheila Krumholz noted, the Court recognized this, observing that:
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable …[C]itizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests …and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
