Corporate Politics

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
January 29, 2010

In the litany of significant U.S. Supreme Court decisions — Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, New York Times v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade — will we now add Citizens United v. FEC? Based on the general hyperventilation and super-attenuated giddiness it has sparked, we may as well.

Like everything, time may shake this ruling free of its legal, philosophical and practical dust, and in a generation it may be as unremembered as Wenar v. Jones. Right now, however, it is being greeted as the gravest threat to civilization since the Vandals sacked Rome, or at least since Dino abandoned Jerry Lewis.

It’s not often the president of the United States stares right at the Supreme Court justices and tells them that, by his thinking, they messed up (and anyone who missed the stony return gaze of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy — who authored the opinion — and the golly-gee gulp of Justice Samuel Alito can certainly check it out on YouTube), but this decision generated that event.

It also has led to Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, warning that the Supreme Court has turned political power in Michigan over to the hands of some 300 corporations. And it has led to the Michigan Chamber of Commerce setting up three separate seminars in Lansing, Detroit and Grand Rapids to discuss just what the court ruled and what it could mean for corporate involvement in elections. All the events are expected to be well attended.

The potential effect of Citizens United on elections is titanic, of that there is no argument. And coming at the beginning of an election year, especially an election year expected to be so pivotal in Michigan, the decision’s basic ruling that corporations have a free-speech right to speak out directly in an election could play a decisive role in the election results. That the decision could allow foreign-owned corporations the same rights of political activity as homegrown companies makes many people queasy (and if there is an effort to reverse the decision, it may focus on limiting foreign-owned corporations from political activity).

But it is the “potential” effect we face now. What actually happens in the 2010 election and beyond is unknown, and what effect it will have is a complete mystery right now. The general political reaction now is to the potential and not to the actual. And so far, though the ruling affects both corporations and unions, the concerns are directed at corporations, since even corporate execs admit they have more money available for political activity than unions.

Corporations, that is the people who run them, are very involved in politics now. The largest companies all have political action committees that contribute to candidates. Many of the smallest are members of business associations (which they often join to get cheaper rates on insurance and take advantage of other benefits) which all also have PACs. The associations and large corporations all have lobbyists who meet pretty much daily with legislators and members of Congress and regulatory officials and top administration officials. Peruse any campaign finance report, especially those of the major parties, and the names of corporate executives pop right off.

So, corporations were hardly political virgins before Citizens United took away the veil and opened up the steamy, fleshy side of policy to their shocked but fascinated eyes. The question now is how much more active do companies and their executives become in this new world?

A week ago this column talked about a car dealer running an ad for cars and congressmen. That wasn’t made up, it actually happened. In the early 1980s, a Lansing dealer ran a TV ad that promoted his Edsels or Vegas or Pacers or whatever and Republican Richard Headlee for governor. It generated a campaign finance complaint.

In 1998, while Lansing’s House Office Building was under construction, union workers unfurled banners from the girders supporting Democratic gubernatorial candidate Geoffrey Fieger at a rally, and there was at least discussion among some conservative political operatives about filing a campaign complaint.

Under Citizens United, theoretically both activities will now be kosher, so long as the dealers and the unions disclose who paid for the activity, and as long as they do not directly contribute to the candidate and did not coordinate those activities with the candidate.

It is reasonable to expect companies will get more actively involved in political campaigns, but it would be surprising if in 2010 companies overtake the airwaves with ads for their favorite candidates. It generally takes a little while, after all, before exposure to the underside of life drives one to complete and total amoral wantonness.

And remember that once business owners take the giant risk of starting their businesses, they tend to become a little timid (a little?) afterwards, worried about upsetting the customers, over-analyzing the cost and possible benefits of any step. Launching themselves without reservation into tying their companies to partisan politics is one step that could definitely upset some customers.

People don’t always like corporate influence in the things they care about. Consider the anger and upset over a planned change to the Michigan State University Spartan logo that Nike was involved in designing. If people can get worked up over a logo on football helmets, might they also be upset at a company backing a controversial candidate?

Clearly, we should expect to see storeowners not afraid to post signs for candidates in their windows. Expect your local weekly comic to carry ads signed by the hardware store and the grocery store supporting the popular candidate, especially in elections where the popular candidate is expected to win by acclamation.

But in the first few elections, especially in ugly contested elections, one should expect corporations to get involved in a sub rosa way. In other words, committees such as “People for Cute Puppies” will start running ads supporting candidate Muttsy Poodle in the cat and dog campaign fight against Purrsy Siamese, and then when the campaign reports are filed one will glean which execs and companies fronted the money for the group.

Now, there could be a lot of these types of committees, and it would be wise to keep watch on how many and how much they spend, because that could be the first telling sign if Citizens United does make it to the pantheon of major Supreme Court cases and if it does bode for major changes in civilization.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.