And while I'm echoing, I also want to echo Brad's point here since "all over the map" is a pretty good description of what I'm hearing, too. To the extent any real themes are developing, I'd say there are two, corresponding to the job responsibilities of the people in question.
At the what I'll call the "VP of Government Relations" level, I'd say there's more elation that anything else. Which makes sense to me - if my job was to advocate to the government I'd be pretty happy to have a tool like this in my toolbox, too. At the Board/executive suite level, however, I think most of the reaction has been much more reserved. Even before that blowup around the money Target gave in MN, I'd say the people whose job it is to run the whole business (as opposed to just the GR function) seem to see this newfound freedom as quite a mixed blessing.
The expression one exec (not a client, btw) used with me once was that "it's much more bludgeon than scalpel," which really rang true in my ears. His point was that while there may be times when this kind of approach made a lot of sense, all the collateral costs mentioned before (to relationships with customers, business partners, vendors, etc. - even with other elected officials at other levels of government) made the job of deciding when & how to use this tool much more complicated than some might have foreseen prior to CU.
I've also heard a interesting distinction made between the past practice of large personal contributions by CEOs, board members, company founders, etc., which may or may not continue at the same level in the future & which were seen as easier to distinguish from the company since even customers and business partners typically appreciate that everyone's entitled to his or her personal politics, and direct corporate spending for which that kind of distinction is obviously impossible.
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
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Paul Lehto
Sent: Wed 9/29/2010 8:53 AM
To: JBoppjr@aol.com
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 9/28/10
What's the feedback you've received from the corporate world (outside
your clients) about CU's impact on the law? Thrilled? Indifferent?
On 9/28/10, JBoppjr@aol.com <JBoppjr@aol.com> wrote:
> Geez, I am thrilled by the result in CU and have hardly minimized its
> impact, particularly on the law, but what I was talking about was the
> practical
> effect and I was trying to be candid. I said an only modest effect on
> business corps, more of an impact on advocacy corporation, like CU, but the
> total net effect is now indeterminate. I only know what I currently know.
> Jim Bopp
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> lehto.paul@gmail.com
> 906-204-2334
>
>
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2334
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law