This summer, I did something I never thought I would. A self-proclaimed bleeding-heart liberal, feminist and civil-rights activist, I donated money to support a conservative Republican candidate who's passionately opposed to GLBT rights.
How did this happen? Like most things in politics these days, it's complicated.
I have long been a fan of Target stores. I like that Target is a Minnesota company and that it donates money to Denfeld High School whenever I use my Target card. Last year, when the market was down, I took advantage of a special deal with an online broker and invested my Christmas money. Target was the first company I looked at and I was, and still am, extremely proud of my four shares of Target stock.
I blame the Supreme Court for the sad turn of events that transformed me into a Republican donor. Prior to the court's decision in Citizens United, corporations couldn't spend money out of their corporate treasuries on direct donations to candidates or on independent expenditures, spending on behalf of a candidate that isn't coordinated with the campaign. The distinction between donations and expenditures is critical in election laws. The government can regulate political donations, most obviously by capping the amount of money a person can donate. Expenditures receive greater free-speech protection. I can generally spend as much money as I want on behalf of an issue or a candidate as long as I don't coordinate that expenditure with the campaign.
Before Citizens United, corporations could make political expenditures only through corporate political action groups, or PACs, which collect voluntary donations from employees and shareholders. Now, corporations are free to use their hefty corporate treasures on campaign expenditures.
ADVERTISEMENT
Sure, Target's CEO has been donating money to Republicans for years, but I believe he has the right to do what he wants with his own money. I'm also fine with Target's PAC spending money on elections. After all, everyone who donates to a PAC does so voluntarily and, I assume, knows where the money is going.
A direct corporate donation is different. As a shareholder, money that I had a stake in just went to a politician, and that bothers me, not just because it went to a candidate I do not support but because it was done in my name without my consent. I'm bothered that my individual expenditures could never compete with those from a multi-
billion-dollar corporation at a time when who raises the most money is more important than who has the best ideas. It seems like you need to be a multimillionaire to get elected these days.
Corporate expenditures are going to lead to longer, more expensive campaigns. Target and Best Buy each spent more than $100,000 already. Fox News' parent company donated a cool
$1 million to the Republican Governors Association. Look forward to a lot more political ads brought to you by Corporate America.
I respect the First Amendment; I believe that the answer to bad speech is more speech. I trust the American people to fix this system, not by changing the law, but by using it. We have the right to protest, to boycott, to educate ourselves on the issues and to vote based on who represents our interests -- not who can afford the flashiest ads.
I, for one, will not shop at a store that gives money to any political party. No doubt I'll soon run out of places to shop, but at least I'll save a lot of money, and maybe, just maybe, corporations will decide that buying politicians isn't worth the price.
Jessica Vormwald grew up in Duluth, is a 2004 Denfeld graduate, has a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and women's studies from George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and is in her third year of law school at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
