‘Which Side Are You On?
The ‘House of Labor’ tries to have it both ways with the Supreme Court’s momentous campaign finance decision.
by Roger Bybee
In the 2007-2008 election cycle, corporations injected just under $1.964 billion in federal campaign contributions, while labor, despite unprecedented effort, spent a fraction of that—$74.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Yet despite this 15-1 disadvantage displayed in the last election cycle, the AFL-CIO filed a brief in support of lifting restrictions on corporate and union spending on independent expenditures. As OMB Watch reported August 5, private information service BNA believes the AFL-CIO brief “stands out the most.”
On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated spending limits on independent expenditures on a 5-4 vote—a controversial ruling that wiped out three precedents on campaign spending controls. The court’s rightist majority also took the position that campaign spending is a form of free speech and that corporations are entitled to the same unlimited rights as people.
As if surprised by the ruling’s pro-corporate direction, the AFL-CIO denounced the decision in a January news release that day, stating, “Today, the Supreme Court further tilted the playing field in favor of business corporations in public elections. By allowing unlimited corporate treasury expenditures that explicitly support or oppose particular candidates, the Court has increased the already excessive influence that corporations exert in our electoral system.”
As one AFL-CIO official, who requested anonymity, put it: “The federation’s position was at best short-sighted, careless and clueless. … [C]orporations will always out-spend working people and unions in elections. … We’re hoping labor will now get in the forefront of working to achieve genuine reform [for public funding of elections].”
Story Courtesy of In These Times.com
