From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Paul Lehto
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 9/28/10

I don't know what Jim's is, but mine is all over the map: "game changer;" frustration that more corporations won't take advantage of it; fear of being forced to make decisions; pleased that they no longer have to do "issue ads" and hope someone won't claim they're really express advocacy; "no difference;" pleased that its easier to participate; confused (mainly by misleading news reports of what the decision did); earnest consideration of what this means in carrying out their responsibilities to shareholders.  I've not found any, even in the "game changer" crowd, who have indicated they intend to dramatically increase their political participation. 

Overall, I would say most I talk to see it as a sensible and correct decision that they will use judiciously - they're just not dying to spend their shareholders wealth on politics unless they believe it is truly to the benefit of the corporation's shareholders.  For the most part they still consider lobbying a better investment, but really, given their druthers, would prefer not even to have to be involved in politics at all, but would rather simply to go about their business.

There will be more corporate (and union) spending thanks to Citizens United.  There will not be the torrent of money some have claimed.  As we are already seeing, politics will be better for it: more honest if Trevor is correct about issue ads; more voices - and often incredibly important voices -- will be heard; there will be less focus on the regulatory nuances and more on the speech; there will be more support available to cash strapped challengers and probably more competition and fluidity.

An interesting point:  if you go back and look at news coverage of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, you will find there was virtually none.  Almost none leading up to the decision, and almost none after. No one was making silly arguments about corporate billions flooding the electoral system; no one claimed that democracy was threatened or that we dodged a bullett.  There seems to have been a better sense of perspective at the time.  All of us who worked hard for the result in Citizens United think it is a very important case, and a key decision that restores the First Amendment to its rightful place and hopefully puts an end to a potentially very dangerous line of thinking about the Constitutionality of limiting political speech.  But for the most part its critics vastly overstate its likely practical impact. 

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp