Citizens United, More Myth Than Legend
Citizens United really wasn't that big a deal.
Bashing Citizens United for allegedly undamming a torrent of corporate money that is now flooding Republican campaign coffers is a popular sport amongst Democrats looking for something other than their own failures to blame for their impending electoral bloodbath. But, as is so often the case, the hyperbolic spin far outpaces the reality:
Why is Citizens United “the touchstone”? Mainly because news outlets such as the Times insist on portraying it that way, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary:
“Interestingly, the legal changes directly wrought by the case have turned out to be quite subtle, according to campaign finance lawyers and political operatives. Instead, they said, the case has been more important for the psychological impact it had on the biggest donors.”
… According to the new, revised “story line” (who is it that comes up with these story lines, anyway?), Citizens United was not that big a deal in legal terms, even though critics of the decision from President Obama on down portrayed it as the end of our democracy. The problem is that some donors—possibly including corporations as well as wealthy individuals—mistakenly thought it was a big deal and increased their giving based on that erroneous impression.
… “Nevertheless, Fred Malek, a longtime Republican operative who is helping to lead fund-raising for the Republican Governors Association and is chairman of a new nonprofit advocacy group, American Action Network, said the ruling had seldom come up in his conversations with donors.
“‘I don’t find anybody who is contributing based on that ruling,’ he said. ‘People are contributing because they have deep reservations about the policies and direction of this Congress and this administration. That’s what’s bringing them in.'”
The attempted walkback by the Grey Lady is interesting in itself since it’s been a major contributor to the myth of Citizens United as the root of all evil this cycle. Having been forced to acknowledge that the decision didn’t have nearly the legal effect they’ve helped create the impression that it did, they now retreat to a redoubt that can never be empirically challenged. Convenient.
But, but… ‘Malek’ is an Arab name. Arabs are foreigners. It must be the backdoor through which foreign money is being pumped into Republican coffers to influence the voting public!
(I’m waiting for my ‘panic now’ order from the DNC and its affiliate NYT.)
“The attempted walkback by the Grey Lady is interesting in itself since it’s been a major contributor to the myth of Citizens United as the root of all evil this cycle.”
Is “lie” to strong a word to characterize this sentence?
Their reporting of this decision was about as “fair and balanced” as one could possibly hope for. Here is a link to their report which sought out the views of a wide range of scholars and other interested parties on the effects of the decision, including Eugene Volokh (fer goodness sakes!)
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/how-corporate-money-will-reshape-politics/
Ooh, people who are spending millions to effect the election so that a new crop of corrupt Republicans will do their bidding never mention the supreme court decision that allowed this when writing their checks. That tells me the decision had no effect. Thanks, Dodd!
Well, if Fred “Jew Hunter” Malek says so, it’s good enough for me!
While I reluctantly agree with the decision there is plenty of evidence out there showing the damage that has been caused by it this election cycle without disclosure laws strong enough to prevent gaming the system.
Um, yeah, no. One forum on the topic does not “fair and balanced” make. No rational person could think Liptak’s lede from their news reporting is “fair and balanced”:
There’s not even a pretense at it. And it didn’t stop there. Let’s review a few recent pieces from the Grey Lady to see how “fair and balanced” they’ve been…
September:
September:
First Monday:
Last week:
And, despite the retrenchment, they’re still at it right up to today:
Overturned important precedents. Watergate! Bitterly divided. Unleashed. Flood. Conservative justices overturned a century of precedent (false). Conservatives gave corps unlimited right to spend $.
Yeah. That’s fair and balanced alright.
Perhaps you should be a little more circumspect about slinging around accusations of lying.