In Our View, Jan. 22, Politics Intensifies

Federal elections are about to become more intense, more partisan and more political as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Thursday. In a way, this is a good thing; voters will get more information. But the ruling troubles many people who believe money already wields too much power in American democracy.

The Columbian’s opinions about campaign finance have been founded on the freedom of speech that is protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, as long as full disclosure of financial involvement is made clear to voters. The Supreme Court advanced that concept Thursday, dispensing with a 63-year-old law that limited the influence of large groups in presidential and congressional campaigns. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that companies and other large groups such as unions cannot be prohibited from producing and running their own campaign ads, as long as those efforts are independent and not coordinated with the candidates. Also, independent groups are no longer banned from running ads within the closing weeks of a campaign. Left in place was a ban on large groups donating money directly to federal candidates.

Critics of the ruling — largely on the political left — were wailing on the brink of hysteria when the ruling came down. Former congressman from Pennsylvania Bob Edgar said, “It’s the Super Bowl of bad decisions.” Supporters were equally exercised in the opposite direction. Political-organization lawyer Cleta Mitchell — quoted in The Wall Street Journal — praised the ruling because it “rips the duct tape off the mouths of the American people.” Both reactions are a bit hyperbolic, because both the political left and the political right can be viewed as winners. Liberals will benefit from the louder voice of unions in federal elections, and conservatives from the louder voice of corporations.

It’s a mixed bag of news for the American public, though, especially for the voters. According to Liz Sidoti of The Associated Press, voters will benefit from the increase in information. “Corporations and unions are likely to tell you their version of things, now that they’re free from restrictions,” Sidoti wrote. “But buyer beware: It’s still up to voters to separate fact from fiction.”

Which brings us to the downside: “People probably will have to endure even more now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want from their general treasuries right up to the moment of an election. Voters will have to discern the motivations behind the ad campaigns as best they can,” Sidoti wrote, “and more ads will only boost the potential for more salacious spots and negative campaigning.”

In other words, politics will become more political, and as distasteful as that might be to some purists, it’s actually an affirmation that the freedoms of speech and political discourse — however negative and accusatory the campaign ads might become— are worth protecting in America.

The high court also upheld the requirement that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors. That information is crucial for voters as they assess the candidates. And, fortunately, here in Washington state, the exemplary Public Disclosure Commission helps inform voters about the source of political contributions and other aspects of campaign finance.

Despite the intentions of dreamy regulators-to-be, it is impossible to separate money from politics. Attempts to do so in recent years only led to the explosion of political action committees. The best strategy, then, is to let freedom of speech prevail and keep voters thoroughly informed about which groups are spending money, and on which candidates. The need for a fully informed voter, therefore, has never been greater.