Coping with the New American Tradition; Campaign Finance; Perhaps Shareholders Should Vote on Companies' Political Donations; OTHER VIEWS

By Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara | St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO), July 25, 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Coping with the New American Tradition; Campaign Finance; Perhaps Shareholders Should Vote on Companies' Political Donations; OTHER VIEWS


Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara, St Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)


On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its unpopular Citizens United decision and blithely stripped Montana of a century- old law that protected its elections from corporate politicking. The court decided that Montana would not even get the opportunity to present evidence in its case. Instead, the court summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court, which had upheld Montana's law just six months before.

The Montana case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, was seen as the last best chance in perhaps decades to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its position on Citizens United. Now that hope is gone. OK. So now what?

There is plenty of work to do to keep American democracy robust in light of Citizens United and its little sister, American Tradition. For one, now that corporations are in our elections to stay, we need some new rules of the road that are tailored for corporations.

If I'm buying political ads as an individual, then I am spending my own money. This is quite distinguishable from a corporate manager at a public company buying political ads with corporate resources. In that case, the money isn't just attributable to him or her. Instead, the corporate manager is using what Justice Louis Brandeis once termed "other people's money."

The other people in this case include investors, who may have zero interest in subsidizing the manager's pet political projects. Thus, different rules should apply when managers spend other people's money in politics rather than their own.

What would these different rules look like? First, there should be clear disclosure to investors that the spending is happening. Second, there should be some ability of investors to approve the political expenditures. As the Supreme Court just stated in the union context, an opt-in mechanism is key.

To see how such rules would work in the real world, check out the United Kingdom. In 2000, the United Kingdom amended its Companies Act to better protect investors from politically active corporate insiders. There are two aspects to the law: public companies in the United Kingdom report political spending down to the pound to investors, and investors get to vote on the political budgets of public companies before the money is spent.

So how do we get these reforms implemented here? First, we have to remember that because of our system of federalism, there are two types of elections: state and federal. And to further complicate things, at the federal level, different administrative agencies have overlapping jurisdiction regulating money in politics.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Coping with the New American Tradition; Campaign Finance; Perhaps Shareholders Should Vote on Companies' Political Donations; OTHER VIEWS
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?