Blog

Citizens United turned a license for spending corporate cash into a blessing. Much of this activity—now generally decried as super-PAC spending—was permissible in other forms before Citizens United, but corporate counsels may have advised their clients to stay away. The floodgates may have been open prior to Citizens United, but the flood has begun in earnest only afterward. President Obama's decision to allow for super PAC spending on his behalf is understandable. As his supporters say, he disagrees with the decision, supports reform, but does not want to unilaterally disarm. Given the amount of money raised by Republican super PACs in the primary period, the decision to unleash his supporters was inevitable. Whether he will be as effective as his opponents remains to be seen. Not only do they have a head start, but given the tenor of the campaign already, it seems likely that corporate cash will be flowing in predominantly one direction (and that unions probably will not be able to make up the gap). But those who attempt to predict winners and losers from structural changes in the campaign finance system, often do so at their peril. President Obama set fundraising records in 2008—an achievement that, unlike this year, was not facilitated by access to the bully pulpit.

Bankruptcy filings fell by 12 percent in 2011, down to 1,350,000. This is the first annual drop since 2006, so it seems like good news, at least at first glance. But the trends the last few months suggest a little caution. Ordinarily, filings drop off precipitously at the end of the year (presumably families try very hard not to file during the holiday season). This year, however, filings were flat during November and December. So despite the drop in year-on-year filings, there is some reason to worry that we might be witnessing another upturn in filings in the next few months.

In late December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court startled many legal observers and drew national attention by upholding that state’s 99-year-old ban on corporate spending in state elections, notwithstanding the 2010 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC striking down the federal ban on corporate election spending. The Montana Supreme Court sought to distinguish from Citizens United in three ways. It stressed the strong historical evidence of corporate domination and corruption of Montana politics in the late 19th and 20th centuries, which had led to the enactment of the corporate spending ban. It emphasized Montana’s modest population and the low costs of its elections, so that an influx of corporate money could significantly affect electoral outcomes. And it noted that the administrative burden on Montana corporations of channeling their campaign spending through political action committees, which state law allows, is much less than that imposed by federal law, so that the Montana ban on direct corporate spending does not seriously limit corporate campaign participation.

It is extremely unlikely that any of these differences will persuade the United States Supreme Court that Montana’s law passes constitutional muster. Citizens United was not based on evidence of whether corporate spending improperly influenced elections or whether the spending ban actually interfered with corporate political participation. Instead, it reflected a categorical determination by the five-justice majority that corporate election spending is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be limited—period.

The real significance of the Montana decision is its dramatic demonstration of the continuing discontent with Citizens United among the American people. Even the dissenting justice in the Montana case, who acknowledged that he was bound to throw out the Montana law, expressed his view that Citizens United was mistaken. The public’s reaction to the surge in Super PAC spending in the early contests of the 2012 presidential election further underscores the growing anxiety about the potential impact of unlimited campaign cash on our elections. Citizens United is the law. But as the Montana decision indicates, it is sharply at odds with the views of many other Americans, including judges, concerning the proper role of money in a democracy.

Nothing is more interesting than watching an industry move from disrespect for Washington and its ways to learning how to use the system to do what it needs to. The Web industry has decided it can stand up to Hollywood, instead of cowering as usual, and so far it seems to be working. The question is whether, having used political power for defense, it will become tempting to use the same techniques to gain advantage.

Our banks face a massive wave of lawsuits during the months and years ahead—not just from investors, like AIG, who purchased mortgage-backed securities, but also from state attorneys general who are pushing for systematic, billion-dollar settlements that would offer meaningful relief to homeowners who are struggling to avoid foreclosure.