Citizens United Frees Corporations to Spend on Elections, But Increases Scrutiny

[babylonsister]

Citizens United Frees Corporations to Spend on Elections, But Increases Scrutiny
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Leads Not to Flood of Corporate Money, But Subtle, Important Changes in Electioneering
By Patrick Caldwell 8/12/10 5:00 AM

snip//

Twelve weeks out from the midterm elections, the apocalyptic warnings are receding and the realities of the decision are becoming more apparent. With increased attention in the post-Citizens United world, it may in fact prove more difficult for prominent companies to engage in political campaigning, but a rise in a culture of obscured financing looms.

snip//

The most visible instance of businesses injecting funds into a political race this cycle occurred in Minnesota last month. Target and Best Buy contributed a combined quarter of a million dollars to MN Forward, a new Chamber of Commerce-affiliated group, which in turn used those funds to produce ads backing the Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. LGBT organizations attacked the donations, as Emmer is known for opposing gay marriage and for his ties to a controversial anti-gay groups. National liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org and The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) quickly latched onto Target’s donation and organized a boycott against the big-box store.

For corporations such as Target, the Citizens United world offers mixed blessings. Companies can now spend more freely, but at the price of increased scrutiny. If a company wishes to support a candidate on specific policies, it ties itself to the full spectrum of the candidate’s beliefs. In the instance of Target, the company was criticized for Emmer’s views on social policy even though it claimed to have supported him solely for his economic policies, with MN Forward’s ad dealing with Emmer’s job policies.

Target has entered damage-control mode since their contributions became public. Their CEO sent a letter apologizing to company employees which said the company would review its political donations practices, while simultaneously the company is negotiated with the HRC to end the boycott movement. At the height of Target’s public backlash, Goldman Sachs changed its policies on political activities, adding the statement, “Goldman Sachs also does not spend corporate funds directly on electioneering communications.”

more...

http://washingtonindependent.com/94550/citizens-united-frees-corporations-to-spend-on-elections-but-increases-scrutiny

[mmonk]

1. The problem with Citizens United is that the corporate candidate

can sit back while the corporations fund commercials attacking the character of the opponent without the candidate being able to have enough money to counter. It also entices more politicians to be in their corner as they can reap benefits.

[qb]

2. What is interesting is how the Target scrutiny expanded to scrutiny of the CEO's personal donations.