Straws in the Wind: The 5 Supremes

The discussion of the recent decision quickly degenerated into a charge from the Republicans that President Obama dissed the Supreme Court by stating his disagreement with their money in politics decision and, in addition, had it all wrong anyway. On the other hand, as I have thought about my larger Roosevelt Institute project, The Next American Economy, I’ve realized that climate change, the budget, globalization, the Chinese all pale as problems in comparison to our willful and growing inability to govern ourselves.

An indication of this is the brief article by Senator Orrin Hatch in the Feb 3 Politico. Senator Hatch is a very conservative, very smart man who has often been guilty of acts of bipartisanship in which he seems to recognize that there is a world beyond the Senate. But this time he is guilty of a sleight of hand that is characteristic of senatorial debate and deeply misleading. Senator Hatch states flatly that President Obama was completely wrong and then goes on to say why. “The case had nothing to do with contributions by anyone to political campaigns,” and “this case had nothing to do with campaign-related spending of any kind by foreign individuals or corporations.” These comments are both true, standard debating sleights of hand, and dishonest. Yes, the decision of the 5 Supremes does not allow corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns. But no one has said it did. The decision does allow unlimited expenditures by corporations and unions in the course of political campaigns. Nor is there any clear reason why it doesn’t extend the same rights to foreign corporations — and what is a foreign corporation anyway? So get ready for a flood of money into negative advertisements “uncoordinated” with campaigns. Why didn’t Senator Hatch just say, “the hell with you, I just want more corporate and union money in American politics” ?

A somewhat different point of view is presented by Ben W. Heineman, writing in the Atlantic, Jan 24, 2010. Ben Heineman, for those of you who do not recognize the name, served for many years as the General Counsel of G.E. and was considered one of the best general counsels in the world. In his article he dissects the value judgements the 5 Supremes have imposed on the rest of us, and is quite clear about his views of this decisions impact on our politics: “By opening the door to yet more money in campaigns, ….., the majority demurely offers us the image of enhancing “the free market place of ideas,” when the reality might be closer to augmenting the bedlam in the insane asylum.”

I think the decision is a disaster, but like most governance disasters it will unfold slowly. I would bet that Washington lobbyists are deluged right now with questions from the Washington offices of corporations and unions asking what they can do, but I doubt if major corporations will do much in the 2010 elections. Most CEOs know this is a bad decision and do not want to be first in taking advantage of it. The first impacts will come from smaller, private companies in local elections. From now on, you will not want to be the local candidate opposed to the interests of a substantial company or union. You will be eviscerated.

So if you think that political leadership consists of taking on very difficult issues at times when any real answer is unpopular, you just saw the odds against such leadership — in anything - get a whole lot smaller.