We the people . . . are people
WASHINGTON— Americans may be sharply divided on other issues, but they are united in their view of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that unleashed a torrent of political spending: They hate it.
In a Bloomberg Politics national poll last month, 78 per cent of respondents said the “Citizens United” ruling should be overturned, compared with17 per cent who called it a good decision.
“Wow. Wow. I’m stunned,” said David Strauss, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. “What it suggests is that Citizens United has become a symbol for what people perceive to be a much larger problem, which is, the undue influence of wealth in politics.”
The 5-4 ruling said corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited sums in support of political causes.
Unhappiness with the 2010 decision cuts across demographic, partisan and ideological lines. Although the ruling was fashioned by the court’s conservative majority, Republicans oppose Citizens United 80 per cent to 18 per cent, according to the poll. Democrats oppose it 83 per cent to 13 per cent.
Democratic candidates are aiming to harness the hostility toward Citizens United in the 2016 presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley say they will insist that their Supreme Court nominees oppose Citizens United.
The wording of the poll, which didn’t mention Citizens United by name or describe the free speech interest invoked by the majority, may have exacerbated skepticism toward the ruling, says Lawrence Baum, a specialist in judicial politics at Ohio State University.
Still, the poll indicates deep suspicion of a campaign finance system seen as giving outsize influence to the wealthy. Asked whether the system should be reformed so that a rich person doesn’t have more influence than a person without money, 87 per cent said yes; only 12 per cent said no.