Supreme Court’s Decision Could Affect Balance of Congressional Contests
January 22nd, 2010 - Congressional Quarterly
By Keith Perine

The Jan. 21 Supreme Court decision lifting restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose candidates for public office could have a particularly dramatic effect on congressional debates in which businesses already have a significant financial advantage over their opponents.

Consumer advocates predicted that companies’ newfound ability to fund ads out of their corporate treasuries would add to the influence they already wield through lobbying and issue advocacy.

On energy and climate issues, environmental groups are already being outspent by oil and gas companies, which are pressing Congress to expand offshore drilling rights. The proposed financial regulatory overhaul presents a similar disparity; spending by Wall Street institutions dwarfs that of public policy and consumer groups that are seeking tougher rules.

“We’re already being outspent 10-to-1,” said Tony Massaro, senior vice president for political affairs and public education at the League of Conservation Voters. “We’re used to being outspent. But the magnitude is going to grow.”

Over time, he added, the new ability that corporations have to influence election results could, in turn, affect legislators’ perceptions of environmental laws.

“As they inject more and more corporate money, that may have long-term ramifications on what we’re able to move legislatively,” Massaro said.

Lisa Gilbert, an expert on money and politics at U.S. PIRG, a federation of state public interest research groups, said the “threat of a last-minute attack ad” will influence lawmakers as they set policy.

Massaro, Gilbert and other advocates are echoing the populist rhetoric that President Obama and Democratic leaders articulated immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision.

‘David and Goliath’

“It’s been a David and Goliath fight,” said Heather Booth, director of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of consumer and labor organizations pushing for an overhaul of the financial regulatory system. “This makes it more so. But we still have the slingshot.”

Democrats and their allies in environmental and consumer advocacy groups already are raising the specter of big corporations taking the reins of government.

To be sure, it is too early to know the effect of the court’s decision on policy battles with any certainty.

Former Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma (1977-1992), who chaired the House Republican Policy Committee and now teaches at Princeton University, downplayed the expected changes.

“You assume that people who disagree with you are going to come after you in a campaign,” he said. “That’s not new.”

And Kenneth A. Gross, who heads the political law practice at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, noted: “Corporate money is not that easy to come by. My experience is it’s not low-hanging fruit.”

At the very least, some experts say, corporations could funnel more money to trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers
Association, that could help carry their message.

“Voters still hate Big Oil. But voters don’t hate the Chamber of Commerce,” Massaro said. “My guess is that those corporations are going to be much more strategic.”

Seth Stern contributed to this story.