It’s Official: Citizens United Case Helped Elect More Republicans
A new study shows that the Citizens United Supreme Court case resulted in more Republicans than Democrats getting elected.
[su_center_ad]
The advantage isn’t large, but it is statistically significant: The researchers found the ruling, in Citizens United v. FEC, was associated with a six percentage-point increase in the likelihood that a Republican candidate would win a state legislative race.
And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.
In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win.
“Citizens United has given corporations and labor unions new means of influencing political elections,” researchers Tilman Klumpp of the University of Alberta, Hugo Mialon of Emory University and Michael Williams of Competition Economics wrote in their paper, “The Business of American Democracy: Citizens United, Independent Spending and Elections.”[su_sky_ad]
labman57 September 1st, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Response of the conservative majority on the SCOTUS:
“Mission accomplished!”
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 1:53 pm
“The Business of American Democracy” A phrase that shouldn’t even exist.
Jake September 1st, 2014 at 1:56 pm
American Exceptionalism – we have the best politicians money can buy.
greenfloyd September 2nd, 2014 at 1:05 am
“You’ve lost that loving feeling….”
http://youtu.be/r8hjtFq3vE0
mea_mark September 1st, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Who it helped the most was the Oligarchy. The don’t care what party wins as long as the person winning does their bidding. For now, it’s usually republicans doing their bidding but that may change if we don’t keep a watchful eye out for their corrupting influence.
Eric Trommater September 1st, 2014 at 2:32 pm
^^^^Yes x 10000000!
tiredoftea September 1st, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Coupled with Repubs winning state legislatures in the 2008-10 elections and getting to remake state electoral maps in their favor, Dems are at another disadvantage at least until 2020!
R.J. Carter September 1st, 2014 at 6:23 pm
And yet Republicans aren’t expected to win any elections for the next 100 years?
tiredoftea September 1st, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Can you guarantee that?;-)
Eric Trommater September 1st, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Just want to repeat what @mea_mark:disqus said. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a D or an R next to the name of a bought politician. It is is just as harmful to our way of life.
wpadon September 1st, 2014 at 4:07 pm
If corporations are people, then corporate executives should be held personally responsible for the actions of the corporation.
Larry Schmitt September 1st, 2014 at 4:10 pm
It says the corporations are people, not the executives. Have a little common sense.
Bob Cronos September 1st, 2014 at 4:19 pm
There are lots of (former) corporate executives in prison for various illegal acts…
Elliot J. Stamler September 2nd, 2014 at 12:40 am
They certainly are in a number of situations–you know nothing it seems about corporation law and criminal law.
wpadon September 2nd, 2014 at 8:36 am
You are correct. I am not a lawyer, but I have been a victim of lawyers. I’ll wait and see if anyone goes to jail from GM. I do not recall anyone from the West Fertilizer Company explosion being charged with any crimes from their neglect.
Larry Schmitt September 2nd, 2014 at 4:54 pm
How many bank executives have done time when their banks were found guilty of all kinds of criminal acts related to the mortgage disaster? None, that’s how many. The banks pay fines of a bazillion dollars, which they make up in a couple of months, and the suits keep making huge salaries and bonuses. That seems to be the way it usually goes. The CEO of Union Carbide was charged with manslaughter by India after the Bhopal disaster, but he did not show up, so no one paid the price for thousands of deaths.
greenfloyd September 2nd, 2014 at 1:26 am
And, like people, have a finite existence with all profits going to charity upon their demise.
R.J. Carter September 1st, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Hooray for our side!!
mea_mark September 1st, 2014 at 8:56 pm
Hooray for your side! Celebrate the money and the corruption while you can, karma can be a bitch.
Elliot J. Stamler September 2nd, 2014 at 12:39 am
I wonder how many of the commenters have actually read Citizens United including the dissents. Most of the critics I am quite sure have not. Knee-jerk liberals just like knee-jerk conservatives want results-controlled decisions rather than constitutional adjudication. The issue is not that C.U. helps elect more Republicans (which is surprising to no one), it is whether or not it is the correct interpretation of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Knee-jerk liberals (a good assortment of which appear in this column) like knee-jerk conservative adhere to the maxim: Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee. C.U. in my view is the correct interpretation of the constitution and its holding confers upon labor unions and all kinds of trade assn’s, etc. the same right as it does on corporations.
greenfloyd September 2nd, 2014 at 12:57 am
I have not read Citizens United although it seems to both give an advantage to the wealthy and further pollute our entire political system. As Randy Rhodes often pointed out, the only thing lacking is a requirement for politicians to wear their corporate logos.
Elliot J. Stamler September 2nd, 2014 at 2:23 am
Floyd, it does give an advantage to the wealthy. Being wealthy affords advantages in everything. That’s life. But the constitution can’t be abridged to deny wealthy people their rights any more than to deny poor people their rights. And yes, this money IS polluting our political system but I don’t see any constitutional way around this. But bear in mind that Pres. Obama outspent Romney last time–we Democrats are not impoverished even ‘tho the Republicans are more likely to get tons of money. Also while not a remedy to the pollution, CU did not deal with DISCLOSURE laws…I see nothing to prevent mandatory disclosure by all groups spending money in a campaign of where the money comes from. It’s possible that the SC holding in Sullivan v The New York Times MIGHT inhibit this to an extent but I think Sullivan is distinguishable from political contribution disclosure. And I might add that shareholders of publicly-held corporations certainly should have a right to know what political contributions are being made by management which is supposed to be answerable to them.
greenfloyd September 2nd, 2014 at 3:19 am
Somethings gotta give at some point… a leveling of the political playing field where ideas are the main currency worthy of our votes. An element of randomization would also be helpful.