Citizens United: A Year Older, But No Less Contentious

Friday, January 21, 2011

On the one year anniversary of the Citizens United campaign finance decision, the ruling remains as contentious as ever, with efforts under way to alternative mechanisms to fund campaigns, and attempts to change the law itself.

At the federal level, the progressive organization Common Cause is leading the call for a reappraisal of the ruling. It's also questioning whether the ruling itself was colored by bad ethics. Common Cause points out that Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, both of whom voted in favor of the ruling in the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, participated in political strategy sessions with corporate leaders who stood to benefit politically from the decision. Specifically, both justices were named as guests at a political retreat for Tea Party financing-powerhouse Charles Koch. Koch leads Koch Industries, which spent more than $2 million on federal lobbying efforts during last year's third quarter. In the case of Justice Thomas, there is an additional conflict of interest charge because his wife, Virginia Thomas, is CEO of a conservative 501(c)4 group which participated actively in campaign finance in the 2010 elections.

Common Cause wants Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the justices were ethically bound to have recused themselves from the case. If so, the group wants the Justice Department to file a motion with the Supreme Court to vacate the judgment. Such a result would be highly unlikely, though. While the criteria for judicial disqualification is spelled out under United States Code, the decision to recuse is ultimately left up to the individual Supreme Court justice.

Meanwhile, in New York, leaders of several national reform organizations urged Governor Andrew Cuomo to overhaul New York State’s election system. Separately, Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens), State Senator Daniel Squadron (D-Brooklyn/Manhattan) and New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio announced their support of a bill to require corporations to disclose and defend donations to their shareholders.

The state legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Lancman and Senator Squadron is an attempt to decrease corporate spending on political campaigns by mandating that corporations making political expenditures first obtain approval from a majority of their shareholders. In addition, the bill would require that those corporations explain to shareholders the business rationale behind the contributions. Public Advocate de Blasio has also created an online petition for New Yorkers to urge the New York State Legislature to pass the Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act.

Groups are also calling on Governor Andrew Cuomo to create a public financing system in New York. Saying that “dysfunction in Albany and a broken political system in New York has been an open secret for far too long”, Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennen Center, joined Common Cause and a dozen other advocacy groups in asking Governor Cuomo to make good on his promises to bring reform to Albany by enacting a voluntary system of public financing for the state. 

Waldman said reform is “necessary for the economic revitalization of the state”, though the fact remains that there is no money in the budget to adopt new initiatives. Advocates estimate it would cost $15 million a year, which could be a tough sell during a budget crisis.



More in:

Comments [1]

Jack Jackson from Central New Jersey

And now we learn that in addition to the unreported dinners with the Koch Bros. for Scalia and Thomas, Thomas' wife, Virginia, has received over $680K in compensation from The Heritage Foundation over the last five years that the good justice did not declare on his yearly disclosure forms.,0,2413407.story

As I believe that if this were an offense by Ginsburg or Soto-Mayor or Kagan, the reactionary Right would be off the hook with calls for the justice's resignation.

Since it involves a standard bearer for the loony 'natural rights' Right - as I've heard them defined they should more correctly be called 'supernatural rights' - and the President and country want to see more 'conciliation' between the two sides, this abuse of his duties and his oath of office will be overlooked.

What a country!

Jan. 23 2011 01:08 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at


Supported by