An op-ed in CNN by the American Sustainable Business Council’s David Brodwin describes how the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is pro-business – but only pro-mega-multinational-corporation-with-huge-cash-reserves-to-spend-on-political-ads-and-lobbying-business.
Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for corporations to spend unregulated, unrestricted and undisclosed amounts for political purposes is not very popular among the real engine of the American economy, according to a recent poll that found that 66% of small business owners thought the decision was “mostly bad” or “somewhat bad.”
The ASBC highlights some of the main reasons why the Citizens United ruling created an unfair advantage for wealthy special interests:
First, allowing unlimited money into politics allows the past to hold the future hostage. Companies (and individuals who own them) with sufficient resources to sway elections often represent the industries and companies of the past, rather than the industries and companies that are creating the future…
Second, allowing unlimited money in politics allows the big to achieve an unfair advantage over the small. This is ironic in light of the huge role small business plays in creating private sector jobs in America, even as some large corporations act as net destroyers of American jobs, when outsourcing and offshoring are factored in…
Third, allowing unlimited money in politics allows companies to collect IOUs for special favors from presidential candidates -- particularly as a result of contributions made early in the election season, when a few million dollars can swing the result in a small state like New Hampshire.
The bottom line is that Citizens United is an affront to free and open competition, stacks the deck in favor of the mega corporations that don’t really drive the American economy, and above all, is a direct assault on the democratic process.
Elected officials agree:
Rep. Keith Ellison
Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin