Proposed executive order would shine some sunlight on corporate electioneering | Villeneuve

Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States struck a devastating blow against open government when it decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50, holding that corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections. Although the Court did uphold disclosure requirements as part of the decision, corporations have found an easy way to circumvent them: Any corporation that wants to covertly influence the outcome of an election can simply funnel an unlimited amount of money into a fake nonprofit organization, and use the nonprofit to anonymously buy millions of dollars’ worth of paid media. Legislation has been proposed that would curtail this and other practices made possible by the “Corporations United” ruling (particularly the DISCLOSE Act), but Republicans have repeatedly killed it.

By Andrew Villeneuve • June 9, 2011 3:50 pm

Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States struck a devastating blow against open government when it decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50, holding that corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

Although the Court did uphold disclosure requirements as part of the decision, corporations have found an easy way to circumvent them: Any corporation that wants to covertly influence the outcome of an election can simply funnel an unlimited amount of money into a fake nonprofit organization, and use the nonprofit to anonymously buy millions of dollars’ worth of paid media.

Legislation has been proposed that would curtail this and other practices made possible by the “Corporations United” ruling (particularly the DISCLOSE Act), but Republicans have repeatedly killed it.

Now, President Barack Obama is mulling a proposed executive order that would make public some secret corporate spending on elections. The order would require any corporation that has or wishes to bid on federal contracts to disclose electioneering expenditures – including expenditures made indirectly through front organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Not surprisingly, the Chamber hates this idea (which shows just how much merit it has). A New York Times article published last month about the proposed order quoted Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs, as saying, “We will fight it through all available means… To quote what they say every day on Libya, all options are on the table.”

Josten and his cabal are worried that if the order is signed and enforced, it will become much harder for them to rake in money for electioneering. That’s because corporate executives might think twice about authorizing checks to fronts like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce if they know that the checks will have to be publicly reported. From Josten’s point of view, that’s a bad thing: it makes it harder for him and his fellow lobbyists to purchase lawmakers’ votes or dupe voters. From my point of view, it would be a great thing. It’s wrong that corporations are allowed to spend any money influencing elections in the first place.

The Supreme Court has mistakenly held that corporations are people and are thus entitled to the same rights as “natural” persons. The precedent the Court set, all those years ago, is ridiculous. A person is a person, there’s no such thing as an artificial person.

Corporations are, in reality, private governments – not people. The similarities are easy to spot if you think about them. Both corporations and governments are something human society creates. Both consist of bureaucracies. Both make decisions that affect people’s lives. Corporations behave even more like governments when they are in oligopoly or monopoly markets (where there is little to no competition). As anyone who has studied economics knows, monopoly and oligopoly markets are very common in the United States.

Given that corporations are private governments and control huge sums of money no person could ever acquire as a sole proprietor, it is completely outrageous and entirely unacceptable that they presently have the power to anonymously flood the airwaves or our mailboxes with ads.

We deserve to know who is trying to buy our vote. Our democracy will not survive if our elected leaders cannot muster the courage to fight for open government. As Justice Louis Brandeis once observed, sunlight is the best of disinfectants. Without disclosure, we cannot see the harm that is being done to our society and our society’s institutions. Consequently, we can’t put a stop to it.

That is why disclosure is so important. Disclosure helps unmask corruption. To an extent, it helps deter corruption.

Although not all businesses would be impacted by this executive order, most of America’s biggest corporations do some amount of business with the government, and would be affected.

With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama can undo some of the damage caused to our democracy by the “Corporations United” decision.

It is imperative that he hears from all of us, because he and his team are certainly getting an earful from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other corporate lobbyists about this. If you agree that this executive order is needed, let your voice be heard. Call or write the White House. Your message may not reach the President directly, but it will reach his staff. And it will make a difference.

Andrew Villeneuve, a 2005 Redmond High graduate, is the founder and executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, a Redmond-based grassroots organization. Villeneuve can be reached at andrew@nwprogressive.org.