Campaign Reform For All?

I haven't had the time or inclination to read yesterday's Supreme Court case that eliminated certain limits on election spending by corporations.  The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overturned decades of precedent and held that corporations could finance ads for or against political candidates.  I have, however, noticed the news coverage, almost all of which mention that the case means corporations and unions can now spend as much as they like, implying somehow that unions and corporations have an equal ability to influence elections through their spending.  They don't. 

Although it is true that unions spent freely to try to elect candidates in the last election cycle, it is also true that unions do not have unlimited funds.  Corporations practically do.  Opensecrets.org estimates that in the 2008 election cycle all unions combined spend less than half of what the Chamber of Commerce spent supporting or opposing candidates.  http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/02/labor-and-business-spend-big-o.html.  These figures only count the Chamber of Commerce on the business end of things; once corporations begin to spend in earnest it will dwarf the 80 million the Chamber spent in 2008.  Unions, on the other hand, will not be able to afford to lobby and spend at anything close to the same level.

The influence of corporations and business and their money can be seen in the effort to reform  health care.  Heatlh care firms and their lobbyists spend 1.4 million dollars a day trying to influence the effort.  And influence it they did:  the bill as currently written drives more consumers into the arms of insurance companies, and there is no countervailing public option to keep private insurers honest and efficient.  This is a preview of coming attractions for how corporations will influence policy.  As one lobbyist read the decision, lobbyists will be able to go to politicians and say “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want."  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?ref=todayspaper

To quote Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."  Likewise, the Supreme Court decision does remove restrictions on unions and corporations from certain spending restrictions.  But let's not pretend that this decision places them in an equal position.