Finances in campaign bring dismay

   Two years have passed since the Supreme Court rewrote the rules of campaign finance in a controversial 5-4 decision known as Citizens United. While it's too early to tell how the decision will impact the long-term health of our democracy, the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign may offer a glimpse into the future.  

   Citizens United struck down a century of federal law aimed at limiting the influence of corporate wealth in federal elections. The majority said any effort to control independent campaign spending by a corporation would violate the First Amendment. Subsequent decisions then used the logic of Citizens United to strike down similar limits on the campaign contributions of wealthy individuals. Significantly, the court conceded that regulations aimed at combating "corruption" might withstand constitutional scrutiny. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy explained, unlimited expenditures by corporations would "not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Two months into the 2012 campaign, it seems safe to say that Kennedy's prediction missed the mark by a wide margin.  

   The most significant consequence of Citizens United has been the emergence of the super political action committee (PAC), an organization that can legally raise and spend unlimited amounts of corporate and individual money, provided it does not coordinate its expenditures with a candidate. 

   Thanks to the invention of the super PAC, it's now possible for a single, fabulously wealthy individual to keep a struggling campaign afloat. Newt Gingrich would likely have been forced out of the race if not for the generosity of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who recently donated $10 million to a pro-Gingrich super PAC. Rick Santorum remains in the race thanks in large part to the generosity of millionaire investor Foster Friess, who has contributed 40 percent of the money raised by Santorum's own super PAC. 

   There's no evidence that such donations were corrupt in the literal sense of a quid pro quo, but if a candidate's dependence on a wealthy donor doesn't give rise to the appearance of corruption, it's hard to imagine what would.

   The rise of the billionaire donor is only the tip of the iceberg. At least in the case of the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns, it's possible for voters to determine where the candidates got their money, although Iowa and New Hampshire voters had to wait until Federal Election Commission reports were released in late January, long after the contests in those states ended.  

   A final unintended consequence of Citizens United has been a dramatic uptick in negative campaigning. A candidate with a well-funded super PAC can bury his rivals under negative advertising all while disavowing any knowledge of the ads. 

   Again, it's too early to tell how the rise of the super PAC will affect American elections in the long term. But one thing is clear: the first contests under the new rules have looked nothing like the flourishing "marketplace of ideas" sketched in Justice Kennedy's Citizens United opinion. Indeed, turnout has been down, relative to 2008, in every primary and caucus to date except one – which suggests that the new system, whether corrupt or not, is hardly a boon for American democracy.