Whether it is the Rudin real estate firm taking over the remains of St. Vincent’s Hospital, or the Koch brothers taking over Congress, it is clear that big money has big influence in political arenas from local to national in scope. The US Supreme court has expanded this influence by decisions such as the Citizens United one which declared that corporations and unions can make virtually unlimited indirect expenditures on political campaigns by deciding that these organizations should have some of the same civil rights as people, including freedom of speech. Since then there has been a flood of money into partisan education organizations, pacs, and super pacs, although not to candidates directly.
This decision greatly expands the economic power of corporations, which usually outspend unions by a wide margin, to influence politics. But, this theory of corporate personhood, that they have some of the same rights as people, leaves open the question of what is a corporation. Is it the management, or the shareholders? This may be the Achilles heel of this theory, at least as far as political contributions are concerned, because of two other Supreme Court decisions.
The Hobby Lobby decision stated that in a closely held corporation, with only a few individuals who control the firm, the religious beliefs of the owners can override laws which require health insurance to cover birth control material. But why should this only apply to a closely held firm? In a widely held public corporation, why shouldn’t the religious, moral, or political beliefs of all the stockholders be taken into consideration? Shareholders who own stock are routinely identified for proxy votes and annual meetings, even if the stocks are managed by a 401K or other pension fund. Maybe their religious beliefs should be considered before large corporations make any political donations.
Would this be impractical? Another Supreme Court decision addresses that question. In Knox vs. SEIU the court held that an employee represented by a union could not be required to donate to political action. The employee, Diana Knox, had to be asked for permission to support a political donation beforehand, and it was not sufficient to offer her a rebate afterwards if she objected. She had to opt into the donation before it was made and not opt out afterwards even if this hindered the freedom of the union management to make decisions on contributions.
So, what weapons do these cases give to limit the limitless flow of corporate cash. First, there can be legislation which expands the Knox vs SEIU and Hobby Lobby decisions. Any state, including New York, which has the power to convert or override Republican opposition, can pass a law that requires any corporation to ask for prior approval from all its stockholders before making a political contribution of any type. Those who opt in beforehand will have those corporate funds donated, and those who refuse will have the funds returned to them, perhaps as dividends. If corporations have rights, so do their owners, the stockholders.
Another approach would be by the courts. Knox opposed SEIU with the backing of a conservative legal foundation, and perhaps a liberal opponent of Citizens United with similar backing, or with deep pockets, could challenge political donations by any firm he or she had stock in, in a similar way to Diana Knox. Pension funds, such as the large New York City pension fund could make a similar challenge, especially if a rebate of contributions in the form of dividends might recover the legal fees involved. Comptroller Stringer has made several suggestions of using the pension fund for progressive causes, within the bounds of fiscal due diligence, and this could be a major decision with national implications.
In either case, legislation or a court suit could end up in the Supreme Court of the United States ( SCOTUS ) which at times resembles the Judicial Branch of the Republican Party ( JBRP ) in its current composition. That’s how the Knox and Hobby Lobby cases got decided in the first place. But, in order to rule against this proposal, whether in legislation or a suit, it would have to go against the spirit, if not the letter, of Knox ( requiring opt-in, not opt-out ), Hobby Lobby ( the religious beliefs of all owners guide the action of corporations ) and the rights of stockholders to make decisions. This short article can’t go into the numerous times this court has gone against legal reasoning, legal precedent, legislative intent, or even its own decisions in order to advance a political agenda, but this might be too much even for them.
This proposal will not control all big money influence. Wealthy individuals, conservative foundations, and closely held corporations can still flood the political arena with cash. But, the fight against big money has to start somewhere. Besides, what are the alternatives? Will corporate money continue to flow into politics unabated? Will a constitutional amendment overturning corporate personhood get miraculously passed in this political climate? Some day this country might wake up and realize it has become a Plutocracy, rule of the rich, rather then a Democracy. Unless, of course, it has already happened.
