Trumka’s statement came after the decision by five Republican-named justices threw out virtually all limits on corporate spending on elections, except for direct contributions to candidates. Firms can now buy ads backing or opposing politicians.
Change To Win Chair Anna Burger and Steelworkers President Leo Gerard also criticized the decision.
One limit the court majority tossed was a ban on corporate or union-funded independent issue advertising within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Groups ranging from Citizens United, which launched the case with ads for its film against then-Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, to the ACLU asked the justices to invalidate the independent ad ban. So did the AFL-CIO.
But Trumka said corporate speech, controlled by company officers, should be viewed differently from speech by unions, which he said are democratically controlled by their members. The rest of the AFL-CIO brief was silent on the larger campaign finance questions the court ruled on. In his statement, the AFL-CIO leader was not.
“The Supreme Court further tilted the playing field in favor of business corporations in public elections. By allowing unlimited corporate treasury expenditures that explicitly support or oppose particular candidates, the court increased the already excessive influence corporations exert in our electoral system,” he declared.
“We believe the court wrongly treated corporate expenditures the same as union expenditures, contrary to the arguments we made in our brief. Unions, unlike businesses, are democratically-controlled, nonprofit membership organizations representing working men and women across the country, and their independent speech should accordingly be given greater protection,” he added.
Trumka reiterated the federation’s support for “campaign finance regulation that promotes democratic participation in elections,” possible public financing of election campaigns, tight regulation of campaign contributions, protection of “legitimate independent speech rights” and “effective disclosure of who is paying for what.” The court’s ruling may well ban all campaign regulations he advocates, legal scholars say.
Change To Win Chair Burger and Steelworkers President Gerard were even more caustic.
Gerard told Fox News in an interview the High Court’s ruling means the four biggest banks alone could outspend all unions combined on political ads. The banks are currently lobbying fiercely against any laws banning their behavior that led to the current recession. The court ruling means they could now buy and run ads against lawmakers who vote to regulate them and their transactions.
"The four largest Wall Street banks, if they expended one-tenth of 1% of their resources in a political campaign, that would eclipse every single penny of union revenue for every union in the country," Gerard said.
“We need to move to public financing of elections,” he added. “Otherwise, people will get cynical about their votes and will believe participation doesn’t matter. The vote of the make-up girl in the Fox studio, the teacher, the librarian or Steelworker should matter as much as the banker. If people believe the voice of money speaks louder than their vote, they won’t participate in elections. We have to fix this.”
Burger predicted corporations would drown out everybody else with their money.
“The court lifted the floodgates…on corporate electoral activity in the name of the ‘free speech rights’ of corporations – meaning if you are a CEO or corporate official, you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders\' money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice,” she said.
"Unlimited corporate spending in federal elections threatens to drown out voices of the people who should really be at the center of the political process: Voters and candidates. Corporations have already been shilling out a lot of cash for political activities,” via “attack ads, direct mail and other forms of public communication through PACs.” The court “has given corporate managers the green light to bypass the checks and balances, use unlimited amounts from the general treasury” for politics, she added.
This article was written by Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.
Share
Trumka’s statement came after the decision by five Republican-named justices threw out virtually all limits on corporate spending on elections, except for direct contributions to candidates. Firms can now buy ads backing or opposing politicians.
Change To Win Chair Anna Burger and Steelworkers President Leo Gerard also criticized the decision.
One limit the court majority tossed was a ban on corporate or union-funded independent issue advertising within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Groups ranging from Citizens United, which launched the case with ads for its film against then-Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, to the ACLU asked the justices to invalidate the independent ad ban. So did the AFL-CIO.
But Trumka said corporate speech, controlled by company officers, should be viewed differently from speech by unions, which he said are democratically controlled by their members. The rest of the AFL-CIO brief was silent on the larger campaign finance questions the court ruled on. In his statement, the AFL-CIO leader was not.
“The Supreme Court further tilted the playing field in favor of business corporations in public elections. By allowing unlimited corporate treasury expenditures that explicitly support or oppose particular candidates, the court increased the already excessive influence corporations exert in our electoral system,” he declared.
“We believe the court wrongly treated corporate expenditures the same as union expenditures, contrary to the arguments we made in our brief. Unions, unlike businesses, are democratically-controlled, nonprofit membership organizations representing working men and women across the country, and their independent speech should accordingly be given greater protection,” he added.
Trumka reiterated the federation’s support for “campaign finance regulation that promotes democratic participation in elections,” possible public financing of election campaigns, tight regulation of campaign contributions, protection of “legitimate independent speech rights” and “effective disclosure of who is paying for what.” The court’s ruling may well ban all campaign regulations he advocates, legal scholars say.
Change To Win Chair Burger and Steelworkers President Gerard were even more caustic.
Gerard told Fox News in an interview the High Court’s ruling means the four biggest banks alone could outspend all unions combined on political ads. The banks are currently lobbying fiercely against any laws banning their behavior that led to the current recession. The court ruling means they could now buy and run ads against lawmakers who vote to regulate them and their transactions.
"The four largest Wall Street banks, if they expended one-tenth of 1% of their resources in a political campaign, that would eclipse every single penny of union revenue for every union in the country," Gerard said.
“We need to move to public financing of elections,” he added. “Otherwise, people will get cynical about their votes and will believe participation doesn’t matter. The vote of the make-up girl in the Fox studio, the teacher, the librarian or Steelworker should matter as much as the banker. If people believe the voice of money speaks louder than their vote, they won’t participate in elections. We have to fix this.”
Burger predicted corporations would drown out everybody else with their money.
“The court lifted the floodgates…on corporate electoral activity in the name of the ‘free speech rights’ of corporations – meaning if you are a CEO or corporate official, you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders\’ money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice,” she said.
"Unlimited corporate spending in federal elections threatens to drown out voices of the people who should really be at the center of the political process: Voters and candidates. Corporations have already been shilling out a lot of cash for political activities,” via “attack ads, direct mail and other forms of public communication through PACs.” The court “has given corporate managers the green light to bypass the checks and balances, use unlimited amounts from the general treasury” for politics, she added.
This article was written by Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.