Comment & Debate
Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis), co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, said to the Washington Post in January of 2010: “Oil companies, with virtually no harm to their balance sheets, can now try to “take out” members of Congress who don’t toe their company line on energy policy. Foreign-owned companies ¿ even those owned and controlled by other governments ¿ are free to underwrite the candidates of their choice.”[1]
“The Court’s Blow to Democracy.” New York Times. January 21, 2010: “As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.”
David Kirkpatrick. “Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Financing”. New York Times. January 22, 2010: “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.”
Robert Lenhard. Of counsel at Covington and Burling; chairman of the Federal Election Commission, 2007. Wrote in a January 24th, 2010 Washington Post Pro/Con piece: “The balance of power in political contests has shifted dramatically away from candidates running for office and toward corporations and unions seeking to advance their policy agendas. Candidates are now far more vulnerable to unexpected negative-ad campaigns, funded by corporations and unions either directly or through nonprofit groups.”[2]
David Cobb stated “The Court has literally legalized corporate bribery of our elected officials.”
Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, said that a lobbyist can tell lawmakers or candidates, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want.”[3]