Click here to see our 9/9/09 post-oral argument press release with Demos
For Immediate Release
SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN PITS LARGE CORPORATE INTERESTS AGAINST INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES
September 7, 2009
Contact:
Jeff Milchen, co-founder, American Independent Business Alliance, 406-582-1255, Jeff@AMIBA.net
Daniel Greenwood, Hofstra University School of Law, 516 463-7013
Tim Rusch, Dēmos, 917-399-0236
“Hearing news reports refer to the current Supreme Court as ‘pro-business’ is maddening,” says Jeff Milchen, co-founder of the American Independent Business Alliance (AMIBA). “Pro-Walmart and Goldman Sachs maybe, but overturning these precedents would be radically anti-business when viewed from the perspective of America’s 6 million or so independent businesses.”
The precedents of concern are Supreme Court decisions upholding election laws dating back more than 60 years which prevent corporations from spending company funds to elect or defeat candidates for political office. Rulings repeatedly upheld now are in doubt after the Court took the unusual step of requesting re-argument in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC).* Arguments occur Wednesday, Sept. 9.
While some may be surprised to see a business advocacy group arguing to uphold limits on corporate electoral power, Milchen cites direct interest of small business owners as the motivation for AMIBA engaging in the case. Notably, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief urging the Justices to open the floodgates to corporate spending in election campaigns.
AMIBA’s amicus curiae brief -- co-written by attorneys for Dēmos and Professor Daniel Greenwood (Hofstra University School of Law) -- argues that bans on direct electoral advocacy by corporations should be upheld.
“Independent business owners often face a decidedly uneven playing field when competing against major corporations due, in part, to tax loopholes, subsidies, federal handouts and preferential treatment bestowed by politicians” said Milchen. “Opening electoral contests to direct corporate campaign spending would further undermine fair market competition and recklessly endanger democracy.”
Of course, the brief makes a legal, not a business argument to the Justices. The brief argues, among several points, that overruling key precedents in question would emasculate, rather than advance, First Amendment values by granting corporations the power to use their huge treasury funds in electoral campaigns even though such funds were not accumulated for political purposes. Elevating corporations to the status of citizens simply has no basis in the Constitution.
Professor Greenwood noted, “If the Supreme Court radically reinterprets the First Amendment to ban states and the Congress from regulating corporate campaign spending, our freedom – and the future of our market system – will pay an enormous price.”
Brenda Wright, a co-author of the brief, added “Allowing corporations to fund electoral campaigns would radically restructure our political system and elevate the property rights of corporations over the rights of citizens to self-governance.”
Jennifer Rockne, AMIBA’s director, added “Even before the banking meltdown, ninety percent of Americans thought large corporations have been granted too much power. It’s a remarkable moment for the Court to consider re-inventing the Constitution to expand corporations influence.”
The brief on behalf of American Independent Business Alliance may be accessed here (pdf). It was prepared by attorneys with Dēmos, a national, non-partisan organization that works to ensure broad political participation and a vibrant democracy; and by Daniel JH Greenwood, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law who has written extensively about the intersection of corporate law and democracy.
* The case involves a claim that makers of a video opposing Senator Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign should have been able to use for-profit corporate funds to air the video – regardless of the political views of customers, employees, shareholders or other persons affiliated with the corporation – instead of using funds specifically donated by individuals who supported the political message. Long-standing precedents of the Supreme Court establish that Congress and the states may require corporate political speech to be funded by donations from persons who agree with the corporation’s message rather than by corporate general treasury funds that were not accumulated for political purposes. The Court’s June 29, 2009 order in Citizens United unexpectedly asked the parties to brief whether two of these key precedents, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, should be overruled.
###