The United States Supreme Court rolled back decades of campaign finance restrictions today, handing down a decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that
upends the court’s precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago. It seems likely to apply to the political role of labor unions as well.
It’s that last line that’s most interesting when looking at the Internet’s reaction to the ruling. Twitter is buzzing about Citizens United, with “Supreme Court” a trending topic. I’ve been tracking the tweets off and on throughout the morning and they seem to take one of two forms. There are those–like me–who hail the opinion as a breakthrough for free speech and a vindication of the First Amendment. But there’s also a avalanche of tweets breathlessly declaring a new corporate age, when evil businessmen will buy elections and we’ll all be at the mercy of our fat cat, private sector overlords.
Almost nobody mentions the labor unions. I mean, if you’re concerned that the Supreme Court has sold America to General Electric and Exxon, why aren’t you also concerned that it’s handed our political system over to the UAW and the AFL-CIO? Corporations ultimately gain “power” (though what we really mean is “money”) buy selling folks stuff they want to buy. Unions, on the other hand, use the political process to force themselves upon the unwilling. Comcast may want to take over the world, but they have to do it without wielding the awesome legal might of the National Labor Relations Act.
The lack of concern about union money in politics, however, is yet another symptom of a broader problem in American political thought. Namely, we’re quite good at locating the problems in the political process (corrupt politicians and corrupting influences), but we tend to assume those only affect the other guys. When our guys are in control, everything is fine and corruption never enters the picture.
Thus we get the reaction to Citizens United: money from corporations spent promoting candidates or issues is “buying” elections. Money from unions doing the same is simply representing the will of the working class. While I think it’s wrong to see money spent on political speech as corrupting whether it comes from corporations or unions, we’d all be better off if we were at least consistent in our condemnation.
Aaron, I think a distinction can be made between labor unions and corporations. The former is explicitly an advocacy organization, people join it to take advantage of its collective power in both the workplace and in politics (although I concede that whether a union actually represents its member is an open question). A corporation, on the other hand, is a singularly commercial entity; the money it takes in is not explicitly earmarked for political or advocacy purposes.
But I will say, you’re spot on your overall point about endemic hypocrisy in American politics.
Nate, I think your point is valid but depends greatly on how abstractly we look at unions and corporations. At the VERY abstract level, both are organizations meant to advance the interests of their members. For a union, this means advocating higher salaries, better benefits, more job security, etc. A corporation wants to earn money for its stockholders. How each does that is ultimately unimportant for that bottom line. A corporation can earn profit by selling a better product — or through rent seeking. A union can get better job security by negotiating labor contracts — or by lobbying for protective tariffs. I’d argue, therefore, that unions and corporations (and by “corporation,” I mean only those that are profit seeking, and not non-profits like the ACLU — which are also covered by this ruling) are rather indistinguishable in this sense.
Aaron, I think a distinction can be made between labor unions and corporations. The former is explicitly an advocacy organization, people join it to take advantage of its collective power in both the workplace and in politics (although I concede that whether a union actually represents its member is an open question). A corporation, on the other hand, is a singularly commercial entity; the money it takes in is not explicitly earmarked for political or advocacy purposes. But I will say, you're spot on your overall point about endemic hypocrisy in American politics.
Aaron, I think a distinction can be made between labor unions and corporations. The former is explicitly an advocacy organization, people join it to take advantage of its collective power in both the workplace and in politics (although I concede that whether a union actually represents its member is an open question). A corporation, on the other hand, is a singularly commercial entity; the money it takes in is not explicitly earmarked for political or advocacy purposes.
But I will say, you're spot on your overall point about endemic hypocrisy in American politics.
Nate, I think your point is valid but depends greatly on how abstractly we look at unions and corporations. At the VERY abstract level, both are organizations meant to advance the interests of their members. For a union, this means advocating higher salaries, better benefits, more job security, etc. A corporation wants to earn money for its stockholders. How each does that is ultimately unimportant for that bottom line. A corporation can earn profit by selling a better product — or through rent seeking. A union can get better job security by negotiating labor contracts — or by lobbying for protective tariffs. I'd argue, therefore, that unions and corporations (and by “corporation,” I mean only those that are profit seeking, and not non-profits like the ACLU — which are also covered by this ruling) are rather indistinguishable in this sense.
The protections that were afforded dissenting union members prior to Citizens United highlights one, not insignificant, distinction between the corporation and the union that you fail to mention. This may not seem like a big issue to most, but to union members who don’t want to want to support their union’s political agenda without reprisal, this may change everything. Before CU, there was at least a legal framework for requiring that contributions to union PACs by members be voluntary, knowing and (theoretically at least) made without fear that declining would cost you your job or membership or some other reprisal. Wage deductions for PAC contributions required express written consent. Where are these protections now? Is it still true that PAC contributions must not be made with funds that were required as a condition of union membership. Unions can raise membership dues or require some fee whenever they want to fund their political activities, essentially compelling PAC contributions. As for shareholders in a corp, the concerns aren’t the same as a union member. Shareholders just care about stock value and return. And if the corporations political activities are increasing value, their interests are served. If they’re not, the shareholder is free to sell and buy another company’s stock. If share value goes up, but the corporation is engaging in political activity the shareholder disagrees with, there are always other good stocks out there. It’s not that onerous for shareholders. A dissenting union member though, by contrast, is stuck and a lot more is on the line.
James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?
I don’t see how this ruling would change any requirements that union spending on campaigns come from funds voluntarily approved for that use by the individual union members, if such rules exist in each state. Congress has been clamoring to impose stockholder approval requirements on corporate campaign spending in response to Citizens United, which would likely be constitutional. And if it is, I don’t see how a similar rule for labor unions would suddenly be unconstitutional under CU.
Of course, I could be wrong–I’m not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination–but that’s my gut reaction to your concern.
Nate, I think your point is valid but depends greatly on how abstractly we look at unions and corporations. At the VERY abstract level, both are organizations meant to advance the interests of their members. For a union, this means advocating higher salaries, better benefits, more job security, etc. A corporation wants to earn money for its stockholders. How each does that is ultimately unimportant for that bottom line. A corporation can earn profit by selling a better product — or through rent seeking. A union can get better job security by negotiating labor contracts — or by lobbying for protective tariffs. I'd argue, therefore, that unions and corporations (and by “corporation,” I mean only those that are profit seeking, and not non-profits like the ACLU — which are also covered by this ruling) are rather indistinguishable in this sense.
The protections that were afforded dissenting union members prior to Citizens United highlights one, not insignificant, distinction between the corporation and the union that you fail to mention. This may not seem like a big issue to most, but to union members who don’t want to want to support their union’s political agenda without reprisal, this may change everything. Before CU, there was at least a legal framework for requiring that contributions to union PACs by members be voluntary, knowing and (theoretically at least) made without fear that declining would cost you your job or membership or some other reprisal. Wage deductions for PAC contributions required express written consent. Where are these protections now? Is it still true that PAC contributions must not be made with funds that were required as a condition of union membership. Unions can raise membership dues or require some fee whenever they want to fund their political activities, essentially compelling PAC contributions. As for shareholders in a corp, the concerns aren’t the same as a union member. Shareholders just care about stock value and return. And if the corporations political activities are increasing value, their interests are served. If they’re not, the shareholder is free to sell and buy another company’s stock. If share value goes up, but the corporation is engaging in political activity the shareholder disagrees with, there are always other good stocks out there. It’s not that onerous for shareholders. A dissenting union member though, by contrast, is stuck and a lot more is on the line.
James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?
I don’t see how this ruling would change any requirements that union spending on campaigns come from funds voluntarily approved for that use by the individual union members, if such rules exist in each state. Congress has been clamoring to impose stockholder approval requirements on corporate campaign spending in response to Citizens United, which would likely be constitutional. And if it is, I don’t see how a similar rule for labor unions would suddenly be unconstitutional under CU.
Of course, I could be wrong–I’m not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination–but that’s my gut reaction to your concern.
The protections that were afforded dissenting union members prior to Citizens United highlights one, not insignificant, distinction between the corporation and the union that you fail to mention. This may not seem like a big issue to most, but to union members who don’t want to want to support their union’s political agenda without reprisal, this may change everything. Before CU, there was at least a legal framework for requiring that contributions to union PACs by members be voluntary, knowing and (theoretically at least) made without fear that declining would cost you your job or membership or some other reprisal. Wage deductions for PAC contributions required express written consent. Where are these protections now? Is it still true that PAC contributions must not be made with funds that were required as a condition of union membership. Unions can raise membership dues or require some fee whenever they want to fund their political activities, essentially compelling PAC contributions. As for shareholders in a corp, the concerns aren’t the same as a union member. Shareholders just care about stock value and return. And if the corporations political activities are increasing value, their interests are served. If they’re not, the shareholder is free to sell and buy another company’s stock. If share value goes up, but the corporation is engaging in political activity the shareholder disagrees with, there are always other good stocks out there. It’s not that onerous for shareholders. A dissenting union member though, by contrast, is stuck and a lot more is on the line.
James, are you stating that the rules governing voluntary PAC contributions have changed or are you asking if they have?
I don’t see how this ruling would change any requirements that union spending on campaigns come from funds voluntarily approved for that use by the individual union members, if such rules exist in each state. Congress has been clamoring to impose stockholder approval requirements on corporate campaign spending in response to Citizens United, which would likely be constitutional. And if it is, I don’t see how a similar rule for labor unions would suddenly be unconstitutional under CU.
Of course, I could be wrong–I’m not an election law expert by any stretch of the imagination–but that’s my gut reaction to your concern.