Thinking About Obama

The other thing I've been pondering is how I feel about Barak Obama. I will admit to a good deal of disappointment, particularly with his unwillingness or inability to convince the wing nuts in his own party that politics is he art of the possible not the art of the "they got theirs now I'm gonna get mine." (As always, Democrats are their own worst enemies). I also don't like the occasional appeals to the know-nothings, as when he panders to those who see the money-center banks as the cause of all of America's ills. But in the end I guess I still like Barak. He's a model of reason and restraint compared to the Tea-Partyers, and he is actually trying to do something about stuff inside and outside America that is plainly broken. Moreover he is doing so for the most part with a degree of candor and class that is remarakable in 21st century American politics. The fact that he has so far not resolved any of those issues is nether surprising nor mostly his fault. America has become almost as ungovernable as California. I'll give him another year.

How Important Is The Citizens United Case

I’ve been thinking about the S Ct decision in the Citizens United case. I am a big fan of the 1st Amendment and also bit of a Hugo Blackian (i.e. when the drafters said "Congress shall make no law" they meant “no law”), so I tend to be gratified on that score. But like everything else (including the 2d Amendment, btw) nothing in the Constitution is or can be absolute. So, is the harm that will flow from allowing corporations and unions to make campaign contributions serious enough to warrant the restriction?For these purposes, let’s ignore the threshold question of whether corporations or unions should have any 1st amendment rights at all. I assume they do and should but agree that this is a debatable issue. What interests me right now are two more practical questions. First, how much difference will direct corporate and associational contributions make in our electoral processes? Second, if there will be a difference will it be baleful or beneficent. My sense is that allowing corporate and union contributions will make very little difference in the end. Money in politics has already passed the point of diminishing returns. There is already so much relentless advertising from so many different outlets that by the time an election actually happens, the electorate is enervated. As I wrote elsewhere, supposing that more campaign money will make a difference to the electoral process is like supposing that another few inches of rain would have made a difference to Noah. For the same reason, I question whether the ruling will actually have much impact on the amount of money invested in politics. The people who would be making these contributions got to be where they are by being good at deciding how to invest money to produce a return. I see no reason to believe they would be more profligate in their political cost-benefit analyses than they are in their business analyses. They too are going to recognize that the incremental utility of additional campaign contributions or advertisements is already near zero. The one difference I do think the decision might make is to improve the transparency of the contributions. Money always finds a way, and if we think McCain-Feingold or other campaign finance laws have kept corporations and unions out of the election business, I think we are kidding ourselves. Allowing contributions to be made directly might reduce the allure of such subterfuges and PACs, “issue ads,” “soft money,” and outright graft, and that in my mind is all to the good. So on balance, my prediction is that this will prove to be a moderately important 1st Amendment case but a tempest in a teapot when it comes to money in politics.