July 29, 2014 SIGN IN | REGISTER

Peckinpaugh and Roberts: Citizens United Flip Might Not Matter Much

Prior to 2002, when Congress passed campaign finance reforms intended to block corporate money from influencing elections, corporate and individual donors often pooled their resources by making unlimited soft money contributions to national political parties that generally helped their favored candidates. Now, super PACs offer donors a decentralized approach to more efficiently support those candidates with whom they agree, or oppose those with whom they disagree.

Unlike some other types of fundraising methods, virtually every donor to a super PAC is disclosed. And because of these strict disclosure requirements, we know that individuals are the ones making the vast majority of direct contributions to super PACs and that public companies are barely participating.

Even though unlikely, the Supreme Court could soon take up the Montana case and might even overturn Citizens United and the limited rights for corporations narrowly outlined in that case. But individuals, who have provided the lionís share of funds to super PACs, will still be free to make all the political speech they want through independent expenditures.

So, while itís tempting to blame Citizens United for all that ails political campaigns, the reality is that this Supreme Court decision has little bearing on individuals, who can continue to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to express political speech.

Tim Peckinpaugh and Steve Roberts are attorneys in the Washington office of the K&L Gates LLP law firm.

comments powered by Disqus

SIGN IN




OR

SUBSCRIBE

Want Roll Call on your doorstep?