A pervasive, anti-Washington mood across the nation and new campaign finance laws that could benefit incumbents may collide in this year’s midterm elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week cleared the way for corporations, unions and other groups to spend unlimited sums influencing elections.
While keeping intact a provision prohibiting direct contributions to candidates, the court ruled labor, advocacy and industry groups have a First Amendment right to spend their money organizing and advertising in federal campaigns.
The decision was hailed by many Republicans and assailed by worried Democrats, largely on the premise that deep-pocketed industry generally favors small-government and anti-regulation Republicans. But it’s also true that private interests support the status quo and are likely to support the party in power — currently, the Democrats.
“I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk for Republicans,” said Ronald Jacobs, government affairs partner at Venable. “Corporations are less likely to spend money trying to knock off the chairman of the committee that oversees them — the safer move is to come all out for that chairman.”
At the same time, polls and recent election results underscore a pervasive, anti-officeholder spirit among Americans, exacerbated by economic woes and especially joblessness.
Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ and father of political direct mail, said the ruling empowers advocacy groups and others to have a greater say in elections, in part by spending on direct mail and the Internet.
“The timing of the … ruling, combined with the anti-incumbent rage of voters and activists, couldn’t be worse for incumbents,” Viguerie said, “and couldn’t be better for independent grass-roots causes that seek to challenge the corrupt status quo.”
Whoever benefits, both sides agreed that campaigns are about to get noisier, and probably more divisive, with many more well-funded voices heard from.
“As they say, the best remedy to bad speech is more speech,” said Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
But Mark McKinnon, communications strategist for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign and for former President George W. Bush, predicted corporations’ new power to spend and organize will overwhelm the process.
“If you ask the question, ‘Do we need more money in politics and should corporations have more influence?’ You can just see Americans thinking, now what the hell? How disconnected from reality can Washington really be?” McKinnon said.
The ruling also effectively stripped away an advantage enjoyed by union groups that may struggle to compete financially with corporations but have the ability to organize, largely for Democrats.
But Jacobs said it seems “impractical” for corporations or advocacy groups to try fielding large armies of block walkers as a result of the ruling.
In Congress, Democrats are looking at ways to limit the fallout from the court’s decision.
Steve Hildebrand, a Democratic strategist who advised President Obama’s campaign, said the end result could be even more voters turned off by negative campaign tactics.
“This is only going to diminish politics in the country even further with just an onslaught of negative ads,” he said. “Corporations will own the government.”
Examiner Reporter Hayley Peterson contributed to this story.
