More News

Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has been a tireless and determined defender of the rich and powerful, the overdogs of American society. The recent decision to afford corporations the First Amendment rights of individuals — where's James Madison when we really need him? — and to nullify decades of efforts to keep wealth from dominating our political system is the most recent example.

With American politics looking increasingly dysfunctional and unable to respond to the key issues facing the country, the distorting role of money, and the interests that it represents, has been a major contributor. The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission threatens to exacerbate an already-imbalanced situation. As countless examples demonstrate, those with the most financial resources dominate our political system.

But the Supreme Court has spoken, and its decision is the law of the land. Unlike some past instances in which opponents urged resistance or outright defiance of a court's ruling, the proper response is to figure out how to work within the guidelines established by the Citizens United decision.

That's exactly what Sen. Brian Frosh and 19 Senate co-sponsors are proposing with SB 570, which had its initial hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee last week. Frosh has taken the language and logic of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion — that the First Amendment is a protection for citizens and associations of citizens — as his starting point. If corporations are to be viewed as associations of citizens, then it seems reasonable to insist that they engage in a collective and democratic decision-making process about how their association will participate in the political process.

SB 570 specifically requires that stockholders, by a two-thirds majority, must approve both the content of any campaign materials and the expenditure of funds before a corporation can engage in political campaign activities. There are also provisions about insuring that the campaign materials are true — certainly a tricky standard to verify in a political campaign — and that the campaign activities are in the best interest of the corporation.

The hearing Feb. 24 included testimony both in opposition and in support of the proposed legislation and a number of questions from committee members about details of the bill. Maryland does not currently regulated corporate contributions to political campaigns. Moreover, the device of creating Political Action Committees (PACs) is widely used at the national level and in states that do restrict corporate contributions.

Based on those facts, you might ask, as some opponents did, what the problem is that the bill is proposing to fix. The answer from proponents comes in two parts:

First, as was suggested in testimony offered by the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, there is a case to be made that greater shareholder involvement in the decisions of corporations — a democratizing of the process —generally would be a positive outcome. Given the decisions that led to the current financial crisis in this country as well as the outrage about executive bonuses, this argument may be a timely one.

More directly, however, there is considerable evidence that political contributions — and the ability of one side of an issue to outspend its opponent by huge margins — can lead to corruption, decisions that are in favor of special interests rather than the public interest and a failure to address major societal problems. The fact that Maryland hasn't yet regulated corporate contributions could be seen as a problem, not as a reason to take no action now.

The Citizen United decision, moreover, takes the country in the wrong direction. It opens up the possibility, not so fanciful, of using corporate influence to buy public policy decisions, as well as legislators.

In its current form, SB 570 undoubtedly needs some revising. Committee members raised valid questions about how to deal with small corporations, unions and ballot question advocacy. Other legislators are considering different aspects of campaign contributions, including the proposal to establish public financing of elections in Maryland.

This is a fundamentally important topic, addressing as it does the legitimacy of both elections and the public decision-making process. There are many who believe that the inability of the political process to achieve agreement on some of the most pressing issues facing the country can be traced directly to the undue influence of money in both elections and lobbying.

Figuring out how to take that influence out of politics is not going to be easy or even totally successful. Past efforts have run afoul of both constitutional boundaries and the ability of smart people to find loopholes in the laws. The solution is likely to come from the same document, the U.S. Constitution, which the Roberts Court interpreted in what one committee member described as a "revolutionary" way in the Citizens United case.

The Constitution also created the system of federalism in which states have a realm of independent authority and the ability to engage in experiments in democracy. SB 570, whatever its final form, offers the chance to establish rules on campaign contributions by corporations that could be a model for other states.

Laslo Boyd is a partner at Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies. He also teaches courses at both Towson University and the University of Baltimore. His e-mail address is lvboyd@gmail.com.