The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Himes assesses Citizens United at 10
STAMFORD — It’s an issue U.S. Rep. Jim Himes hears about all the time.
“I don’t have a town hall meeting in which somebody doesn’t stand up to express their concern over the state of money in our politics today,” he said Tuesday at a town hall meeting.
He visited the University of Connecticut-Stamford to host a talk about campaign finance on the 10-year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Citizens United, the court case that prohibited the government from restricting political contributions from corporations and special interest groups.
Himes, D-4, said Citizens United presents two serious problems.
One is that those not associated with moneyed interests might not have a real voice.
“If you are not associated with one of those entities or not capable of writing a $5 million check for independent expenditure, you legitimately wonder whether your voice really matters against that flood of money,” he said.
The second issue, he said, is that every vote he casts in Congress is often characterized by opponents as being tainted by the influence of donors.
“The first explanation mooted for why I voted in this fashion is often because of money,” he said. “It’s a deeply, deeply corrosive thing.”
Nonetheless, money isn’t everything.
Linda McMahon famously spent $100 million over two campaigns to win one of two Connecticut seats in the Senate and lost both contests.
Arguing against Citizens United is a sticky proposition, Himes said.
“There is not a very bright line to be drawn where constitutionally protected speech ends and the expenditure of dollars for a political purpose starts,” he said.
Robert Post, professor of law at Yale Law School, echoed those sentiments with his first words at the panel.
“I’m here to say, ‘It’s complicated,’” he said, to laughs from a packed room of local residents.
The professor presented his own views on how to best argue against the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which essentially ruled that contributions are protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Post said elections, not money, produce citizen-owned democracy.
“The very foundation of having First Amendment rights — that I get to affect the government — turns on the fact that we believe that elections produce people who are responsive to public opinion and not, let’s say, to corporate money,” he said. “That is a different kind of justification than any that has been presented to the court in the past.”
Himes was one of 234 members of the House of Representatives to vote in favor of the 2019 For the People Act, or H.R. 1, that limits the influence of private donor money in politics, among other things.
But even Himes recognizes that the bill is “very, very unlikely” to be taken up in the Senate.
So what are other ways to implement change?
One option is at the state level, and Connecticut is leading the way when it comes to leveling the playing field for candidates.
The state’s Citizens’ Election Program provides public financing to candidates running for statewide office, a program that was applauded by all of the members of the panel on Tuesday.
State Rep. Dan Fox, D-Stamford, who is the chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, called the program “remarkable.”
“The purpose of this program is to allow for citizens to compete in citizen-owned democracy,” he said.
Cheri Quickmire, executive director of Common Cause, a government reform group, agreed.
“Connecticut really is an example for the nation,” she said.