I came across an excellent article explaining the rationale behind allowing campaign finance in the United States written by an American Journalist, Tony Mauro (cited in “The Supreme Court, 20 cases that changed America, Landmark Decisions,” 2016 Ed, at pp. 173-178). The following are interesting excerpts from Mauro’s article:
“Making it easier for corporations and unions to influence political campaigns, the Supreme Court, on First Amendment grounds, struck down the law that prohibited such organizations from making independent expenditures advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.
Rooting out corruption in American political campaigns has been a goal for reforms for more than a century. In 1907 Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited contributions from corporations to candidates for federal office. That law set a baseline that lasted for decades.
The 1972 Watergate break-in and scandal exposed secret illegal contributions to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign and led to more reform measures. In the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Supreme Court upheld one of those measures that limited contributions for candidates in federal elections. But it struck down a limit on how much money candidates themselves could spend on their campaign, finding that it violated their freedom of expression.
The ruling did little to stem the flow of money into political campaigns through other pathways, such as political action committees. At the same time, however, an increasingly conservative Supreme Court began to take a different view of campaign reform laws as violations of the First Amendment because of the restrictions they placed on core political speech during campaigns.
In 2002 Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which, among other things, barred corporations and unions from directly financing, within 60 days of an election, so-called electioneering communications that mention specific candidates.
The electioneering provision was challenged in 2008 by a conservative nonprofit corporation called Citizens United that wanted to disseminate a documentary that was highly critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. A lower court rejected the challenge and the case went before the Supreme Court.
“Before the high court, supporters of the law cited a 1990 precedent, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a state law banning corporations from directly supporting or opposing candidates.
But conservative justices were clearly disturbed by the idea of banning the broadcast of a film that criticized a presidential candidate, no matter who funded it. The federal government did not help its own case when its lawyer acknowledged during arguments in March 2009 that under the law, even a book could be banned. “That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said.
“When the case was reargued in September 2009, the government said that book-burning would not be allowed, but the damage was done. In January 2010, a 5-4 majority ruled that under the First Amendment, Congress may not bar corporations and unions from using their own money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for office.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy said of the law, “its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the government deems to be suspect.” The majority overturned the Austin precedent.
“By a separate 8-1 vote, however, the court upheld another provision of the law, requiring those backing electioneering communications to disclose their names to the public. Only Justice Clarence Thomas argued that even that provision was unconstitutional.
Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens attacked the majority, stating that “a democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” Three liberal justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor—joined Stevens.
In an unusual move, President Barack Obama criticized the ruling during his State of the Union address a few days after the decision was issued. “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito, who was attending the address, conspicuously shook his head and mouthed the words “not true.”
“The impact of Citizens United is still a matter of debate, though it is undeniable that the amount of money that pours into campaigns from corporations and unions has only gotten bigger, including unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for office.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Majority Decision of the court in the Citizens United case ruled:
“The censorship we now confirm is vast in its reach. The government has ‘muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.’ And ‘the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to is function.’ By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters and which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of ‘destroying the liberty’ of some factions is ‘worse than the disease.’ Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false. ‘When the government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Whether Philippine Election Laws on campaign finances from corporations, factions, political interests groups or lobby groups will follow the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court is a concern that cannot be trivialized. Already our candidates rely on campaign contributions from corporations, lobby groups and vested political interests to fund their expensive campaigns. These monies they pay back by selling their souls to the devils that finance them.
If we were to amend our election laws, it should be to make stricter the prohibition on contributions by corporations, factions, political interests and lobby groups to finance candidates. Otherwise, only the rich and powerful, supported by the rich and powerful, will get elected every election.