April 26, 2010 | Read Time: 2 minutes
Denver
Polls show that Americans are dissatisfied with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January that lifted restrictions on corporate campaign spending, and foundations that share that sentiment should act now to try to thwart the impact of the ruling, a panel argued at a session at the Council on Foundations meeting here today.
Stephen B. Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the moderator of the panel, said that if the 100 largest U.S. companies spent just 1 percent of their profits on campaigns, it would double the current spending by political-action committees.
“We’re talking about an overwhelming influence of money coming into a system already influenced by money,” he said.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that a law prohibiting corporations from using money from their treasuries for “express advocacy” — to urge that a candidate for federal office be elected or defeated — was unconstitutional.
“The landscape has changed dramatically,” said Rep. Donna F. Edwards, a Democrat from Maryland who served as president of the Arca Foundation, in Washington, before she was elected to the House. “It may take a few [election] cycles to figure this out.”
Representative Edwards said that 40 bills were circulating in Congress that would ameliorate the ruling and that she had proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.
Ms. Edwards was critical of health-insurance companies during the debate over the health-care overhaul; she noted that the ruling would open the door to insurance companies to run ads supporting her opponents in the 2010 election.
Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University’s law school, said a partial remedy is a public-financing bill that has been introduced in both houses of Congress. The bill would provide government matching funds to contributions from small donors. He also urged foundations concerned about the ruling to look for ways to support the legal response to keep what he described as “radical decision” from dominating.
“For the smaller foundations that can move more quickly, I strongly urge you to take a look at this,” Mr. Waldman said. “Whatever else you’re up to, this is your fight, too.”
Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said foundations should also contribute funds to “shore up” watchdog organizations so that they can track companies that seek to influence elections quietly by routing money through associations. “We need to do the best we can to follow the money,” Ms. Canary said.
Supporters of the ruling have hailed it as a victory for free speech and have pointed out that many states already allow corporations to spend unlimited funds on behalf of political candidates without dire consequences.
An audience member stood up and complained that the panel was presenting a one-sided picture. “I thought this was supposed to be a balanced symposium,” he said. “There is no balanced opinion being put forth here.”
