Resize Text

For immediate release.
Jan. 21, 2010
Contact: Bryan Warner, N.C. Center for Voter Education, 877-258-6837

Supreme Court Decision Could Lead to Flood of Corporate Cash in Elections
High Court ruling reinforces need for public financing alternative

RALEIGH – Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Citizens United v. FEC that could result in a seismic shift in how campaigns are financed.

The long-held distinction between spending by individuals and spending by corporations has been obliterated. By a 5-4 margin the Supreme Court has radically altered campaign finance regulation, both federally and in North Carolina.

However, the decision also reinforces the vital need for North Carolina’s system of public campaign financing as an alternative to special-interest spending in state elections.

The case was originally brought by a nonprofit organization wishing to use corporate treasury funds to distribute via video on demand a movie critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic nomination for president.

The issue to be decided by the Supreme Court was if video-on-demand services were akin to other communications regulated under federal law. But in an unusual move, the court demanded that the parties submit supplemental briefs on whether a larger question of corporate spending in elections needed to be revisited in order to resolve the case.

In its ruling today, the high court overturned two prior decisions that limited corporate spending in elections. The result of this decision is that corporate interests will have even more latitude to affect the outcome of elections.

“We are disappointed in today’s ruling that essentially grants moneyed interests an outsized role in our democracy,” said Damon Circosta, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education.  “When corporations are left unfettered to influence the political process, everyday citizens get left out. If politics is about a level playing field where ideas compete to be heard, the Supreme Court just handed an amplifier to the very folks who already had a megaphone.”

Although there is a great degree of concern among reform advocates that this decision will only exacerbate the “pay-to-play” system of campaign contributions in exchange for preferential treatment, this decision creates even more urgency around alternative campaign funding models such as public campaign financing.

“We know that public campaign financing works to curb special interest influence and we also know that courts have repeatedly deemed such systems to be constitutionally sound,” said Circosta. “North Carolina has been a national leader in establishing a public financing alternative. In the wake of this latest decision by the Supreme Court, we expect more support for programs that empower citizens to participate in their democracy.”

Because many of North Carolina’s state statutes are modeled after the federal law at issue in this case, the General Assembly will have to reconsider some campaign regulations as they pertain to the use of corporate money in the state’s elections.