Summary
Highlights
Bill Shrek, chair of the political science department, welcomes everyone to the Constitution Day event. He explains that the event is a result of a 2005 mandate by then-Senator Robert Byrd to increase knowledge about the US Constitution. Shrek introduces Dr. Karen Sebold, an assistant professor of political science and director of legal studies, highlighting her extensive academic background and expertise in campaign finance. Dr. Sebold's talk is titled 'Legalizing Corporate Political Speech: How Citizens United Laid the Groundwork for Corporations' Right to Free Speech'.
Dr. Sebold discusses the significance of the First Amendment in American democracy, emphasizing its role in individual political speech. She then poses the central question of her lecture: Does this right extend to corporations? The Supreme Court's affirmative answer, with caveats about independence from electoral candidates, set the stage for significant changes in campaign finance. She notes the Constitution's 236th anniversary and its historical importance.
The Citizens United decision allows corporations to spend freely in elections as long as they don't contribute directly to candidates or coordinate with campaigns. This controversial ruling led to a significant increase in corporate election spending by outside groups, particularly Super PACs. Dr. Sebold references President Obama's strong opposition to the decision and the visible divide among political ideologies on the issue, noting the dramatic increase in outside spending post-2010 to over $2.6 billion in recent election cycles.
Prior to Citizens United, corporations could participate in political campaigns through highly regulated Political Action Committees (PACs). These PACs had strict rules, including separate segregated accounts for voluntary donations only from company-connected individuals. They were banned from using treasury funds for election activities and couldn't air advertisements close to elections that directly supported or opposed candidates (express advocacy), focusing instead on issue ads. Regulations like the Federal Election Act of the 1970s and the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 aimed to control corporate influence.
A shift on the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito's appointment led to the 2007 case FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. This ruling created a loophole, deciding that corporate-funded electioneering communications could be banned for express advocacy only if their sole purpose was to explicitly support or oppose a candidate. This effectively overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold Act, allowing issue ads to be aired preceding elections and opening the door for greater corporate involvement.
Citizens United, a conservative political advocacy group, challenged campaign finance laws. After being denied the ability to air their anti-John Kerry film, they produced 'Hillary: The Movie' in 2007 during Hillary Clinton's presidential primary campaign. When the FEC deemed it express advocacy and prevented its pay-per-view release, Citizens United sued, claiming infringement of their First Amendment rights. This led directly to the landmark Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case in 2010.
The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, though controversial, addressed the question of corporations' ability to spend freely in elections without direct candidate contributions. The court ruled that such independent expenditures are protected by the First Amendment, effectively granting corporations the same political speech rights as citizens. This decision, however, creates an imbalance as corporations can spend unlimited amounts, unlike individuals and political parties, leading to concerns about potential corruption. Dr. Sebold notes that while some predictions about the case proved true, the issue of corruption remains complex.
Six days after Citizens United, the SpeechNow.org v. FEC case further deregulated campaign finance. A PAC advocating for free speech challenged contribution limits and donor reporting requirements. The DC district court ruled that while reporting requirements would be upheld, contribution limits for PACs engaging in independent expenditures were unconstitutional. This, combined with a subsequent FEC advisory opinion, directly led to the birth of Super PACs. These entities can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from various sources for express advocacy, as long as they remain independent of candidates and parties.
The 2011 Carey v. FEC case allowed traditional PACs to operate like independent expenditure groups, creating 'hybrid PACs' or 'super duper PACs,' provided they maintain separate bank accounts. Shortly after, an FEC advisory opinion allowed groups to keep their donors private if they registered as 501(c) groups, leading to the phenomenon of 'dark money.' This means donors contributing to these groups can remain anonymous, potentially avoiding political retribution and receiving tax write-offs. This development further reduces transparency in campaign finance, raising concerns about who influences elections.
The flow of dark money, typically from donors to 501(c)4 groups and then to Super PACs, largely funds negative campaign advertising. Dr. Sebold points out that most of this spending goes towards opposing candidates, contributing to negative partisanship and political polarization. The amount of outside spending, particularly dark money, has skyrocketed since 2010, significantly impacting elections. She highlights the increasing influence of mega-donors like Elon Musk and other billionaires on both sides of the aisle, whose contributions often target swing states and bypass traditional campaign finance limits, intensifying concerns about who controls the political narrative.
Dr. Sebold concludes by posing critical questions about the future of campaign finance: Will elections be dominated by those with the deepest pockets? Will money continue to dictate election outcomes and eclipse the influence of average citizens? She acknowledges that while some argue the source of funding doesn't matter if the message is the same, the escalating spending and lack of transparency are leading to growing concerns about power and potential corruption. Despite these concerns, Congress has shown little political will for reform, seeing it as a 'wicked problem' and not a top priority for the public. She invites interested students to take her 'Money and Politics' course for a deeper dive into the topic.
During the Q&A, a question is raised about whether foreign entities can contribute to 501(c) groups. Dr. Sebold clarifies that foreigners are generally not allowed to contribute to elections, including 501(c)s, though monitoring such activities can be challenging. She explains that 501(c) groups are primarily regulated by the IRS and must focus on public welfare issues, not overtly political activities. Their regulations are less stringent than traditional PACs, and they are not required to disclose donors, enabling the 'dark money' phenomenon. Another question addresses how nonprofits pay employees, to which Dr. Sebold responds that salaries come from raised funds, often offering entry-level opportunities for political science graduates.