A MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENS COMMISSION TASKED WITH DEVISING
A PLAN FOR OVERTURNING THE 2010 CITIZENS UNITED RULING RELEASED
ITS FIRST REPORT IN ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
THAT RULING GAVE CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS THE
RIGHT TO UNLIMITED SPENDING ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
FOR CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS, I SPOKE WITH UMASS AMHERST PROF.
OF POLITICAL SCIENCE PAUL COLLINS, JR., AND I FIRST ASKED
WHY THIS DECISION CAME BEFORE THE COURT TO BEGIN WITH.
HAVING THE ABILITY TO READ AND >> IT'S AN INTERESTING STORY
THAT A LOT OF FOLKS MISSED.
SO DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THERE WAS WHAT THEN WAS
A VERY SMALL GROUP CALLED CITIZENS UNITED WHO WANTED TO
RUN A LONG FORM POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT CALLED HILLARY THE
MOVIE AND IT WAS CRITICAL OF HILLARY CLINTON AND THE FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT AND SO THEY SAID YOU CAN'T RUN
IT AND CITIZENS UNITED CHALLENGED THAT AND IT GOT UP TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT DECIDES THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE
1235*E789 AND THIS -- FIRST AMENDMENT AND THIS OPENS UP THE
DOORS AND EXPENDITURES OF CORPORATIONS AND LABOR UNIONS
THAT WE SEE PROLIFIC IN THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM TODAY.
>> YEAH, WE HEARD A LOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE AND THERE'S PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE AND, IN FACT, PROBABLY A LOT OF PEOPLE
LIVE HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS BECAUSE WHAT WE SAW MORE
RECENTLY WAS A BALLOT QUESTION THAT PEOPLE LOOKED AT THIS AND
SAID YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE WANT A COMMISSION THAT'S GOING TO STUDY WAYS THAT THIS
MIGHT GET OVERTURNED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND SO WHAT WE'VE
SEEN RECENTLY IS THIS COMMISSION ISSUING ITS FIRST REPORT AND
YOU'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE REPORT AND I HAVE TOO SO GIVE ME
YOUR OVERALL REACTION TO THE ACTUAL COMMISSION REPORT.
>> SO BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH THE COMMISSION WAS PUT TOGETHER TO DRAFT THIS
REPORT.
IN READING THE REPORT, I TAKE AWAY A FEW MAJOR THINGS FIRST OF
ALL THE REPORT CONCLUDES THAT SPENDING POST-CITIZENS UNITED
HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND.
THEY DETERMINED THAT THIS IS BAD FOR DEMOCRACY.
IT PRIVILEGES CERTAIN ELITE INTERESTS OVER THE SORT OF
COMMON PEOPLE AND THEN ANOTHER MAJOR PART OF THE REPORT CALLS
FOR SOME TYPE OF ACTION AND IN PARTICULAR THE REPORT REVIEWS A
VARIETY OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.
IT DOESN'T TAKE A POSITION ON ANY PARTICULAR AMENDMENT BUT IT
REVIEWS A VARIETY OF AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE EITHER BEEN INTRODUCED
OR MIGHT BE INTRODUCED IN THE FUTURE.
>> DO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE SPENDING THE REPORT POINTS OUT
THAT IF YOU LOOK AT 2000-2010 SPENDING WHETHER IT'S ON
ELECTIONS OR BALLOT QUESTIONS IT WAS $260 MILLION HERE IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
THAT NUMBER IN THE 10 YEARS AFTER CITIZENS UNITED WAS 700 --
YEAH, I GOT THAT RIGHT, $700 MILLION.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENCE, WHAT DOES THAT SAY
TO YOU?
>> IT MOST CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR FEARS THAT
WOULD COME IN THE POST-CITIZENS UNITED ERA DID INDEED COME TO
FRUITION WHICH IS TO SAY THERE'S A TREMENDOUS LARGER AMOUNT OF
MONEY BEING SPENT ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TODAY THAN THERE WAS
PRIOR TO THE COURT'S 2010 DECISION.
THE REPORT ALSO GOES INTO SOME DETAILS ABOUT WHERE THAT MONEY
IS COMING FROM AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS THAT FOLKS OFTEN MISS, WHICH IS A LOT
OF THIS MONEY ACTUALLY ISN'T COMING FROM CORPORATIONS AND
LABOR UNIONS.
IT'S COMING FROM STREAM WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS, PRIVATE PEOPLE.
>> THE REPORT SAYS 71% OF THE MONEY CAME FROM THOSE
INDIVIDUALS BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT'S .74% THAT THE AMERICAN
POPULATION MADE THE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF $200 OR MORE.
.47 REPORT SO THAT'S A SMALL PORTION OF FOLKS AS YOU'RE
POINTING TO THIS.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SUPPORT OF THIS LARGELY IT'S DIVIDED AMONG
PARTY LINES.
REPUBLICANS TEND TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE, DEMOCRATS TEND TO BE
MORE CRITICAL.
IF YOU BREAK IT DOWN AND LOOK AT IT STATE LEVEL THERE'S BEEN
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT DIVIDE NATIONALLY AND STATE LOOK AT
THIS ISSUE.
>>? >> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE
MASSACHUSETTS IS LARGELY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY A STATE THAT'S
DOMINATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE POLITICS OF THE
LEGISLATURE TEND TO REFLECT THOSE MORE PROGRESSIVE POLITICS
WHICH TEND TO ALIGN CLOSELY WITH IDEAS OF PUTTING LIMITS ON
CAMPAIGN FINANCE NOW, WHEN YOU MOVE TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL,
THERE'S VERY GOOD REASON WHY NATIONAL LEVEL POLITICIANS,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE RELUCTANT TO PUT
ANY SERIOUS, SERIOUS LIMITATIONS INTO CAMPAIGN LIMITS THAT IT
CAN'T HURTING THEIR CAMPAIGNS SO BOTH PARTIES LIVE IN THIS POST
CITIZENS UNITED ERA THAT THEY'VE HAD TO ADAPT AND PARTICULARLY
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO ADAPT TO HOW DO WE RUN CAMPAIGNS IN THIS ERA WHERE
THE SPENDING IS TRULY MASSIVE.
>> THERE WAS ONE CRITICISM OF THE COMMISSION AS IT'S BEEN
FORMED IN MASSACHUSETTS, A GROUP THAT WAS OPPOSED TO THIS POINTED
OUT THERE'S NOT A SINGLE ARE YOU NOT ON THE COMMISSION.
AND THE COMMISSION FIRED BACK SAYING GOVERNOR CHARLIE BAKER
HAD HIS CHANCE TO PUT, IN FACT -- CHARLIE BAKER PUT 3
PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION AND CHARLIE BAKER IS A ARE YOU NOT
SO THERE WAS SOME ARE YOU NOT VOICE SO A LITTLE BIT OF A
DISAGREEMENT THERE.
WHEN WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE COMMISSION CAME OUT AND SAID
THEY HAD 3 DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WAYS THAT
THIS COULD, IN FACT, EVENTUALLY BECOME A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
IS THERE ONE THAT STANDS OUT MORE TO YOU THAT'S MORE
INTERESTS AND MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN OTHERS?
>> IT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB TO PASS A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
THEY DISCUSSED 3 MAJOR OPTIONS, TWO ARE MORE MAINSTREAM TO GO
THROUGH THE TRADITIONAL PROGRESS WHICH IS THROUGH CONGRESS AND
GET TWO-THIRDS OF BOTH HOUSES TO INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT AND THEN
THE WAY I READ THE REPORT, THEY SEEM TO PREFER CALLING FOR A
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION HAVING THE STATES ACTUALLY
INTRODUCE THIS, THAT COULD BE MORE PLAUSIBLE TO ME BECAUSE
WHAT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO IS KIND OF CIRCUMVENT THE
CONGRESSIONAL ROUTE WHICH AS I MENTIONED A LOT OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ARE FINE WITH THIS BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM NOT ONLY
GET ELECTED BUTTING RE-ELECTED SO -- BUT GET RE-ELECTED SO IF
WE WERE TO SEE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED AND SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED IN THIS COUNTRY TO UNDO OF WHAT CITIZENS UNITED DID
WOULD PROBABLY GO THE CONVENTIONAL CONVENTION ROUTE.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT WE'VE HAD THIS FOR A DECADE.
WE'VE SEEN THAT SPENDING BALLOON AND AS YOU POINT OUT THERE'S
MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RUN FOR THESE POSITIONS WHO HAVE
BENEFITED BENEFITED FOR THE USE OF THAT
MONEY.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE.
>> POSSIBLE.
I THINK A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY
WELL CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO GET AT WHAT I THINK IS ACTUALLY THE
CORE ISSUE WHICH IS NOT CORPORATE AND UNION SPENDING BUT
RATHER THESE EXTREMELY WEALTHY ELITE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DOING
A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF SPENDING FUNNELED THROUGH WHAT WE SORT OF
CALL SUPER PACS.
NOW, YOU CAN DO THAT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT AN AMENDMENT CAN BE WRITTEN THAT
WAY.
BUT WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE WAYS TO
CIRCUMVENT THAT AMENDMENT.
SUPER PACS WE SORT OF THINK ABOUT THAT AS SOMETHING
RELATIVELY NEW IN THE POST-CITIZENS UNITED ERA BUT
THERE WERE VERY ANALOGOUS METHODS OF TRYING TO INFLUENCE
ELECTIONS BEFORE CITIZENS UNITED CAME AROUND.
>> AS YOU LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND LOOK MORE BROADLY ARE THERE
OTHER COUNTRIES OR OTHER AREAS THAT YOU CAN POINT TO AND THINK
THEY HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING WHEN IT COMES
TO SPILL ELECTIONS?
>> YEAH, SO IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO LOOK AT SOME
OTHER NATIONS THAT FOCUS MORE ON PUBLIC SPENDING AND THE PUBLIC
FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.
THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT WE'VE TRIED IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU KNOW,
IF YOU'LL RECALL YOU CAN CHECK A BOX ON YOUR TAX FORM TO DONATE
MONEY TO A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS THE PARTIES -- WELL, THE FOLKS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO NOT SPEND OVER A CERTAIN BAR IN
ORDER TO GET THAT PUBLIC MONEY AND THEY'VE REALIZED IT'S NOT
HELPFUL FOR THEM TO MAKE THAT AGREEMENT SO THEY PASS ON THE
PUBLIC FINANCING.
IF WE MOVE TO A STRICT PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM IT WOULD LOOK
VERY DIFFERENT AND IT WOULD HAVE SOME BENEFITS OF EXCELLING THE
AMERICAN ELECTORATE TO THINK MORE AND PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE
ATTENTION TO THINK, LIKE, DEBATES, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW YOU
KNOW WE'RE INUNDATED WITH ADS AND WE'RE NOT PAYING AS MUCH
ATTENTION TO THE DEBATES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE GOING ON NOW
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BUT I THINK IF YOU HAD PUBLICLY FUNDED
ELECTIONS IT MIGHT ACTUALLY EXCEL PEOPLE TO PAY A LITTLE BIT
MORE ATTENTION TO THIS ELECTION. ♪