When the Supreme Court ruled that the law limiting corporate contributions was an infringement of the right to free speech, the conventional wisdom was–and is–that now big businesses will buy politicians by funding their elections. But it hasn’t turned out that way. Corporations aren’t giving much money at all to political candidates.
The ruling allowing unlimited “corporate” giving–“corporate” meaning collective organizations, not just business corporations–is indeed magnifying the reach of issue-driven organizations, which would be in accord with free political speech. And wealthy individuals, such as George Soros and the Koch brothers (notice how those who demonize one don’t demonize the other), can throw their weight around with their money. One might still worry about the influence of campaign contributions. But the point here is that business corporations are not, on the whole, giving many political contributions. They have found that giving money to politicians can just alienate some of their customers and that they can get more influence for their buck by hiring lobbyists.
From Lee Drutman, Despite Citizens United, elections aren’t a good investment for corporations – The Washington Post:
When the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations could spend unlimited amounts on elections, Democrats and a few Republicans warned that the 2010 decision was going to open the floodgates for corporate money in politics. A million dollars here, a million there, and businesses could get rid of their stubborn opponents in Congress — and maybe cow a few others by threatening to go after them, too.
Then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) fretted that “the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called it the Supreme Court’s “worst decision ever.” President Obama said the justices had “given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”
But in the five years since the ruling, large corporations have mostly declined the generous offer. If you scour the names of super PAC contributors, with only a few minor exceptions, you don’t see the big blue-chip corporations that dominate Washington lobbying. Rather, the rise of super PACs empowered a new category of campaign kingpins: large individual donors such as Sheldon Adelson and Tom Steyer.
There is a simple reason for this: For big corporations, multimillion-dollar electoral spending just doesn’t deliver the same return on investment that traditional inside-the-Beltway lobbying does. Worse, it could earn companies some enemies, too.
[Keep reading. . .]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In