Luke Wachob's letter states the Times Union got it wrong in stating, "Citizens United ended the restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations, associations, and labor unions," and Mr. Wachob goes on to say, rather, "it ruled only that they could spend money independently of campaigns."
True enough, until one asks what spending "money independently of campaigns" really means. Simply put, only limited campaign contributions may be given directly to a candidate's campaign, but unlimited money may now be given independently to nonprofit, tax-exempt 501c(4) organizations that exist largely "for the promotion of social welfare." These entities can also participate in politics as long as it is not their "primary" activity. Public disclosure of these organizations' donors is not required. A Super PAC is a similar kind of organization, except that donors must be disclosed. Although nominally independent, these organizations are often founded and run by former campaign associates, family and friends.
The Supreme Court asserted that independent expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or appearance of corruption," but this defies common sense. Given the spectacular rise in both 501c(4) organizations and Super PACs following the Citizens United decision — with outside spending not truly being independent — our country faces the grave risk of further corrupting our electoral process while inviting the expansion of corporate special interests.
The repeal of Citizens United through a constitutional amendment is desperately needed if we are to undo the damage created by this pernicious decision. Public Citizen, in concert with other national organizations, is hard at work throughout the country to reach this goal.
Carol Bullard, Ph.D.
Public Citizen member
Menands