The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was not entirely unexpected, but it is appropriately seen as a breathtaking change in the way elections work in this country. The Supreme Court struck down federal campaign finance rules that limit corporate (and general organizational) spending on campaign finance ads to help or defeat candidates.
What can we expect now? One need look no further than Texas, which has no campaign restrictions in any statewide races. In Texas, large corporations and individuals have given millions of dollars to candidates and ads supporting them in one election cycle.
While this can be hugely influential on state legislation, at least legislation remains ostensibly open and in the public eye. Texas does have laws that may be seen as more favorable to corporations (such as low limits on medical malpractice compensation and a conservative tax structure), but all in all, the Texas legislative code doesn’t look all that different from other states. That's in part because many laws important to progressives, such as environmental laws, are mandated by the federal-state joint programs such as the Clean Air Act. But this doesn’t mean that unlimited contributions don’t affect the state of the environment.
So what's the hidden danger from Citizens United? The influence on the administrative state. Even with laws on the books, administrative agencies may choose to not act on enforcement or may only impose nominal penalties on violations, and this is what we have seen in Texas. Is this related to campaign finance? According to the Houston Chronicle, many directors of Texas state commissions, such as the powerful Railroad Commission, which controls state water resources, have given tens of thousands of dollars to current Republican governor Rick Perry (totaling nearly $5 million). In cases in which commissioners refused to give more money or sought to support another candidate, they have been fired by the Governor. Environmental enforcement in the state has been weak. Texas has low environmental compliance rates, and low average penalties for environmental violations. The state also is operating a State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act that the EPA says is unlawful.
The Supreme Court may not think that financial access to elected officials means that the elected officials are “corrupted,” but in Texas it certainly gives the appearance that money talks and buys influence on administrative decisions important to the donors.
Whether or not we start seeing something similar at the federal level remains to be seen. We have had prior periods of weak environmental enforcement at the federal level, and robust citizen enforcement suit provisions have proved somewhat useful in forcing at least minimal action. It's also possible that Citizens United will invigorate corporate governance, which could empower shareholders to effectively control large campaign expenditures. In any event, I hope that tomorrow’s Washington doesn’t look like today’s Austin.
Showing 2,834 results
Victor Flatt | January 25, 2010
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was not entirely unexpected, but it is appropriately seen as a breathtaking change in the way elections work in this country. The Supreme Court struck down federal campaign finance rules that limit corporate (and general organizational) spending on campaign finance ads to help or defeat candidates. What can […]
James Goodwin | January 25, 2010
This post is the fifth in a series on the new CPR report Obama’s Regulators: A First-Year Report Card. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) progress on its statutory mission of reducing traffic fatalities came to a screeching halt in recent years, making it imperative that the Obama Administration work quickly to get this […]
Thomas McGarity | January 25, 2010
Cross-posted from ACSblog. The citizens of Minot, North Dakota suffered a grave injustice on January 18, 2002 when a train derailment bathed much of that small town in a toxic cloud of poisonous gas that killed one person and injured almost 1,500 others. A detailed investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the […]
Matt Shudtz | January 22, 2010
FDA scientists have had a chance to develop an assessment of the risks of BPA in food contact applications using a fuller body of low-dose studies and concluded last week that there’s some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children (for a helpful […]
James Goodwin | January 22, 2010
This post is the fourth in a series on the new CPR report Obama’s Regulators: A First-Year Report Card. During the Bush Administration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) simply fell further and further behind in terms of achieving its regulatory mission of protecting people from unsafe drugs, medical devices and food. A series of […]
Alice Kaswan | January 22, 2010
Senator Murkowski’s proposal to disapprove EPA’s scientifically and legally justified finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare would strip the federal government of its primary legal mechanism for addressing catastrophic climate change. If Congress does not think the Clean Air Act (CAA) is the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases, it should […]
James Goodwin | January 21, 2010
This post is the third in a series on the new CPR report Obama’s Regulators: A First-Year Report Card. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the biggest and most powerful of the protector agencies. Consequently, it has also become the agency that was most decimated by regulatory opponents in recent decades. Thus, when President Obama […]
Ben Somberg | January 21, 2010
The EPA announced yesterday that they’re changing the way they treat manufacturers’ claims that certain information about toxic chemicals should be kept secret. Richard Denison of EDF has a useful explanation and analysis of this good news. Rena Steinzor and Matt Shudtz explored the dangers of secrecy in chemical science in a 2007 CPR white […]
Daniel Farber | January 21, 2010
Today’s decision in Citizens United was something of a foregone conclusion. Still, it was a bit breathtaking. The Court was obviously poised to strike down the latest Congressional restrictions on corporate political expenditures. But the Court went further and struck down even restrictions that had been upheld thirty years ago. Seldom has a majority been […]