Leonard Pitts Jr.: Remove corporate cash from elections : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

We the people.

Those are, of course, the first words of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. "We the people of the United States ..." It doesn't say anything about corporations.

So count me among those mystified by January's Supreme Court decision to sweep away decades of established law limiting the amount of money corporations can inject into political campaigns. The court ruled, 5-4, that corporations enjoy the same right to free speech as people do. Speech being defined as writing large checks to political candidates.

The ruling raised the very real specter that our next president will be sponsored, not elected -- a chilling prospect to those of us who already wondered how a legislator beholden to a corporation for his office can be truly expected to put the people first.

This week's congressional hearings only heighten the concern. Lawmakers are investigating the recent recalls over safety defects that have besmirched the reputation of Toyota. We are indebted to the Washington Post for publishing an analysis of legislators' financial ties to the automaker. It turns out, according to the Post, that of the 125 members of Congress on the committees investigating Toyota, "over 40 percent" have accepted campaign donations totaling $135,673 from the company in the last 10 years.

That's on top of a million dollars funneled to lawmakers by Toyota through state parties and PACs. Which is, in turn, on top of yet another million, just since 2008, donated by Toyota to nonprofit groups with, as the Post put it, "strong ties" to members of Congress.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but yours truly is not a guy who can -- or would if he could -- give millions to politicians. How can I be assured that, for all the posturing they do for the benefit of television cameras and reporters' notebooks, those politicians will have my interests at heart?

The answer is painfully obvious. I can't.

Here's the funny part: If I accepted money from Toyota, my employer would forbid me to write about them or, at the very least, require me to disclose the connection. If a judge accepted money from Toyota, she would be expected to recuse herself from any lawsuit to which the automaker was a party. If a police detective accepted money from Toyota, her lieutenant would remove her from any investigation in which the company was involved.

But "the people who make the laws" are financially entangled with this and other companies, and we act as if that has no bearing on their ability to be fair and impartial where those companies are concerned. It makes zero sense.

It also makes the case for public funding of all state and federal political campaigns. Get corporate money out of it once and for all. Require candidates to amass a threshold number of signatures, which then entitles them to campaign funds from the public treasury. Allow no one to opt out a la candidate Obama in 2008. While we're at it, end the gerrymandering that allows candidates and parties to choose their own voters and ensure re-election in perpetuity.

I've seldom met anyone, red state or blue, who didn't think doing these things would be a good idea. The fact that they are yet undone speaks to the seductiveness of corporate money and the corresponding unresponsiveness of our representatives to the people they supposedly represent.

So while I'm sure lawmakers will give us a good show in these hearings, I suspect it will come with a hidden wink and a smile. And that, at the end of the day, the concerns of we the people over the safety of these vehicles will be subordinate to those of the automaker that helps pay the bills. As I've said, I'm not a guy who can write the big checks.

I'm just a guy who drives a Toyota.

E-mail: lpitts@miamiherald.com

tahoeman1971

February 24, 2010 - 7:07 am EST

Well Pitts makes the same mistake many others have made when referencing the "infamous" SCOTUS ruling the President also bungled in his childish lashing out during the State of the Union speech. The ruling was in the case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" and was a case against the provisions in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance debacle. Specifically a 1990 case in Michigan which it overturned completely. It also partially overturned a 2003 case where Senator McConnell of Kentucky had filed suit against the FEC. We keep hearing that this ruling is audacious and activist and that it overturns "decades of precedent". Well it turns it does. Exactly 2 decades. Get your facts straight Pitts and while you at it call the President and let that "law professor" know it did not overturn "100 years" of law as he lied about in his speech. BTW, anyone that thinks corporations were not giving loads of cash in those 2 decades just think of George Soros and 527 organizations and thate massive loophole that existed in McCain Feingold that helped Obama raise half a trillion dollars to become President.

Panacea

February 24, 2010 - 7:55 am EST

Not quite true. Yes, the specific rulings overturned date back to 2003 and 1990. However, the SCOTUS has set over 60 years of precedent in limiting the role of corporate money in politics, and now all that precedents is cast into doubt. The majority (led by Roberts and Alito, who swore not to be activist judges) ruled on issues broader than what was asked for by the plaintiffs; the very definition of activism on the bench.

McCain Feingold had its flaws. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater was not the solution.

February 24, 2010 - 9:27 am EST

To a degree yes Pan. However, the President and many other people since this ruling in January have said that this specific ruling overturned all SCOTUS opinions on corporate involvement in elections which is specifically untrue. The way the President and columnist like Pitts are describing the ruling is political posturing plain and simple. Most people could not name one justice on the SCOTUS much less understand what any ruling pertains to. To simplify it to "decades of precedent" in a speech or an editorial is intended to convince people (like you who said this previously) that this court is outrageously activist and needs to be replaced immediately when that is simply not the case. Always good having civil discussion with you Pan.

2fer

February 24, 2010 - 12:37 pm EST

The issue is not so much whether the current SCOTUS is "outrageously activist," as is it that the majority is ideological and inconsistent in their application of that ideology. The court rules pro-states rights in some cases and against states rights in others, and the only difference seems to be whether the issue favors or opposes conservative political ideology, not law.
Removing the adverb, there seems little doubt that the majority is activist in the sense that they seek out cases that will weaken some areas of government power while strengthening others, especially to strengthen executive power at the expense of legislative and (lower court) judicial powers. This to me seems the very opposite of conservatism, and I see no signs that the majority demonstrates great respect for individual rights. At best they seem to be supporters of majority status quo at the expense of minorities and felxibility in solving problems.
This is not an unusual situation - it ebbs and flows like all political matters - but it is not a little hypocritical to pretend that this court's majority is any less influenced by its political leanings than any other court has been, and it is certainly within the bounds of human reason that some of us would criticize and work for a change in this majority while others praise and seek to maintain it, all of us working from a political vantage point. I understand that Alito, Thomas, and Scalia would want to be seen as impartial arbiters of our great Constitutional principles (Roberts is less demonstrable in his public expressions, even though he certainly is a member of the majority), I simple don't agree that their opinions demonstrate the knowledge and wisdom, let alone the viewpoint, to which they aspire.

February 24, 2010 - 12:56 pm EST

"but it is not a little hypocritical to pretend that this court's majority is any less influenced by its political leanings than any other court has been"

I made no such assertion and yes it would be ludicrous.

Pan and I had a discussion about this last week. Suffice it to say that you and Pan understand what you believe and are able to articulate it without name calling (much appreciated on my end). We all agree that while the court is supposed to me non-partisan it is impossible to discuss cases with political ramifications without involving politics. Regardless of how constitutionally ideologically we claim to be. In reference to my discussion with Pan, you could take your entire post above change the names and the court and perfectly describe the court that ruled on Roe. Point is, everything is relative to your paradigm. Have a nice day 2fer.

February 24, 2010 - 6:33 pm EST

Not quite. The President said this, "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections."

Note the word "I believe." His opinion is this what will happen; he is not asserting it as fact.

Whether or not the President is right only time will tell. I fully anticipate further litigation on this issue as a result of this SCOTUS ruling.

Get A Clue

February 24, 2010 - 7:13 am EST

It's nice to see the comments feature has been turned on again.

bobiwc

February 24, 2010 - 7:29 am EST

You think corporations (comprised of shareholders) should not be able to, other organizations including unions and PACs and should? If you're worried about anything, it should be the EFCA and union contributions to elections.

nemo0037

February 24, 2010 - 8:20 am EST

Well considering that any company with a presence in American has now the same access to the political process as a citizen, I should think it would concern us all. Toyota can now spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, in spite of having the vast majority of its owners and executives in Japan. Oil companies, Chinese holders of American bonds... all sorts of foreign entities can now pour whatever money they see fit into the American election process. The coming election cycle will be an interesting test to see how well this reasoning helps "we the people."

February 24, 2010 - 12:49 pm EST

Have we not invited this participation? Shouldn't Toyota have an opportunity to influence our political process commensurate with their investment within our borders? They provide thousands of jobs, invest millions of $s within our borders, and subject their business to our laws and regulations. Nothing forced us to sell bonds to the Chinese except our own inability, governmental and private, to pay for what we wanted. The Chinese certainly have a right to protect their investment.
We've turned our elections into bidding wars where significant numbers of citizens whom we accept as capable of making intelligent choices change their minds every time a new advertisement is run or a new "gottcha" moment arises. Can we blame those who are willing to suffer the outrages of political life because they have to raise so much $ to succeed in their efforts to get elected? Those who refuse the money become losers.
We reap what we have sown.

news-record.com

OPINION