The recent Supreme Court ruling removing the last campaign finance restrictions still in place following the Citizens United decision of 2010 is a good thing. At least it will bring a modicum of honesty to the process.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court lifted restrictions that had prevented Political Action Committees from coordinating with campaigns. In the past, that restriction worked in favor of the candidates. The PACs would do all of the dirty work, running attack ads that were loosely based on the truth. If any of those ads ever crossed the line, the candidate could claim absolute innocence. It would have been against the law if they had coordinated on that ad.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court lifted restrictions that had prevented Political Action Committees from coordinating with campaigns. In the past, that restriction worked in favor of the candidates. The PACs would do all of the dirty work, running attack ads that were loosely based on the truth. If any of those ads ever crossed the line, the candidate could claim absolute innocence. It would have been against the law if they had coordinated on that ad.
|
The Citizens United ruling found that, when it comes to spending on elections, corporations have the same inalienable rights as people. That opened the floodgates to let massive amounts of money come pouring into our elections. Spending by outside groups went from $574 million in the 2008 election cycle to $4.5 billion in 2024.
At the time of the ruling, the fear was that rich people would buy all of the elections. And, they are certainly trying. Elon Musk plans to spend up to $120 million to help Republicans in the midterms. But eight years after Citizens United, it’s fair to say we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns on campaign spending. Showing me the same ad over and over again isn’t going to make me more likely to believe it. It’s only going to annoy me. There are times when conspicuous spending can do a candidate more harm than good, depending on the source. When the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, spends money on a campaign, the opposing candidate often wears it as a badge of honor, especially in progressive districts. Eight years after Citizens United, voters are much more aware of money in politics and wary of those behind it. Which brings me to Project Jupiter. It is spending lavishly in an attempt to buy our love, and yet faces the most determined opposition I’ve seen in more than two decades living here. I love that they donated $1.5 million to help the Boys and Girls Club finish their new headquarters on El Paseo. I have no doubt that money will be spent wisely and will help lots of kids. But, what do they want for it? Much of the opposition to Project Jupiter is due to legitimate concerns over impacts to the air and water. Some of it is undoubtedly tied to our fears about the future of Artificial Intelligence. But, I think there’s also a belief that all of the money Project Jupiter has been tossing around has greased the skids. Why else would this have been rushed through with so little public deliberation and community input? For me, the jury is still out on data centers. I would love for AI to go away, but it won’t. Data centers will get built. And, Project Jupiter seems to have the best technology available today in addressing air and water concerns. I just wish they would have had an open and honest process instead of trying to buy our affection. It’s insulting. Walter Rubel can be reached at [email protected]. |
Listen to the audio version
|
RSS Feed