The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC decided that the First Amendment right of free speech should apply with little distinction to both individuals and corporations. Since Buckley v. Valeo established money as a form of speech, the Court’s decision allows for corporations to donate unrestricted funds from their general treasuries to political organizations, effectively overturning decades of state and federal campaign finance laws. Fearing effects of greater corporate influence in American public life, Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion warned that corporations can “amass and deploy financial resources on a scale few natural persons can match,” and are not “themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” Although corporations now have a constitutional right to contribute money to independent expenditure groups, these groups are not bound to publicly disclose the sources of their funding. Even though the majority opinion in Citizens United actually upheld Congress’s right to enact disclosure laws, claiming that such “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions” without “impos[ing] a chill on speech or expression,” 501 (c)4 and (c)6 organizations that do not disclose their financial backers are increasingly engaging in political work. While we do not know who is funding such organizations, we do know that the groups playing a larger role in the 2010 elections are overwhelmingly backing right-wing candidates. According to Time pro-Republican groups could spend as much as $300 million for the 2010 election. Many of the organizations almost exclusively supporting pro-corporate politicians never even have to report where their funding comes from. According to the Sunlight Foundation, “about 52 percent of the money spent so far on everything from political ads to phone banks to fliers promoting or opposing federal candidates has come from groups that don’t disclose the sources of their funds.” Corporate dollars are also financing many Tea Party and other conservative “grassroots” organizations, giving “Astroturfing” an even more prominent role in American politics. Citizens United and related judicial and administrative decisions have also allowed for the emergence of so-called Super PACs, which can take in unlimited amounts of money from corporations and individuals. A number of the new political organizations have been exposed as front groups for the energy and insurance industries, and new revelations reveal that some groups bankrolled by corporations even receive substantial funding from federal government contractors and foreign businesses. As of mid-October, the ten biggest independent expenditure groups have already “aired 60,052 ads since the beginning of August.” Legislative remedies such as the DISCLOSE Act will bring more transparency to the process, but leave corporate involvement in electoral politics mostly intact. Due to the sweeping language of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, only a constitutional amendment can overturn the decision. This report looks into the groups, empowered by the Citizens United decision, that are propagating their pro-corporate agenda. Many originated in the aftermath of Citizens United and directly point to the ruling as essential to their founding; others have been active for years but have gained new prominence as a result of the decision. What they all have in common is a relentless desire to discredit progressive ideas and elect pro-corporate candidates to office across the country. As discussed below, they also share an alarming level of dishonesty and distortion.

Common Thread of Misleading Ads

60 Plus Association

American Action Network & American Action Forum

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS

American Future Fund

Where:

AL-02; AR-01; GA-08; IA-01; IA-02; IL-11; IL-17; IN-09; MI-01; MI-07; MS-01; NJ-03; NM-01; SC-05; SD-At Large; TX-17; WA-03; WV-01 American Future Fund is spending handsomely to attack Democratic congressmen and challengers running in open Democratic seats. CQ reports that AFF is spending $4 million altogether in fourteen congressional districts, and the group intends to spend between $20-25 million in total. During the primary season, AFF ads criticized Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky, Bill Binnie of New Hampshire, and Tom Campbell of California. The AFF is strongly backing Senate candidates Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Carly Fiorina of California. Before launching an ad campaign in fourteen congressional districts across the country, AFF hit Bruce Braley of Iowa with a controversial ad regarding the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero. Now, the group is targeting Democratic incumbents such as Bobby Bright of Alabama; John Spratt of South Carolina; Jim Marshall of Georgia; Debbie Halvorson and Phil Hare of Illinois; Dave Loebsack of Iowa; Mark Schauer of Michigan; Martin Heinrich of New Mexico; John Adler of New Jersey; Chet Edwards of Texas; Travis Childers of Mississippi; Baron Hill of Indiana, and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota. In addition, AFF is running ads against West Virginia’s Mike Oliverio, Arkansas’ Chad Causey, Washington’s Denny Heck, and Michigan’s Gary McDowell, all Democrats running for open Democratic seats. Who:

The American Future Fund is based in Des Moines, Iowa, and was founded by GOP staffer Nick Ryan, a former aide to Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle who managed his unsuccessful 2006 gubernatorial bid. Ryan’s lobbyist firm has ties to Big Agriculture, especially Iowa’s large ethanol industry. The AFF’s director, Katherine Polking was previously a staffer for Republicans Chuck Grassley and Tom Latham, and now works for Ryan’s lobby firm, the Concordia Group. The AFF paid Ryan’s firm $300,000 for consulting fees. The New York Times found that while Ryan’s Concordia Group lobbies on behalf of the ethanol industry, the AFF received its seed money from Bruce Rastetter, the “chief executive of one of the nation’s larger ethanol companies, Hawkeye Energy Holdings.” As a 501(c)4 organization, the AFF does not have to disclose the sources of its funding (in this case Rastetter’s lawyer confirmed his connections to the group). Now Ryan, who works as a “lobbyist for four Rastetter businesses,” receives money to attack Democrats with ties to agriculture policy: “Of the 14 ‘liberal’ politicians singled out in a list [the AFF] released last month, nearly every incumbent sits on a panel with a say over energy or agriculture policy. Five sit on the Agriculture Committee; four others are on related committees with say. One candidate was a staff member on a related panel.” When Bruce Braley, a Congressman in the crosshairs of AFF attacks, tried to visit the AFF, he “found only a rented mailbox.”

Iowa politician Sandra “Sandy” Greiner currently serves as the President of the AFF. Greiner was a member of the Iowa State House from 1992 to 2008, and is now pursuing a bid for the State Senate. Like Ryan, she has close connections to Big Agriculture, and she is the past head of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council’s state chapter. While in the legislature, Greiner received 100% ratings from the Iowa Family Policy Center, a leading Religious Right group, the anti-choice Iowa Right to Life Committee, and the pro-corporate Iowa Association of Business and Industry. Greiner’s predecessor at the AFF Nicole Schlinger was the former executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa, a staffer for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, and a fundraiser for gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad. About:

According to Stuart Rothenberg, GOP stalwarts such as Ben Ginsberg, Ed Tobin, and Jan Van Lohuizen played key roles in AFF’s founding. Larry McCarthy, who produced the infamous “Willie Horton” ad, was the group’s media consultant. In 2008, the Minnesota Democrats filed a complaint with the FEC against the AFF, claiming that it improperly engaged in political electioneering by “expressly advocating” for Republican Senator Norm Coleman, rather than running “issue advocacy” ads. Potential Republican Presidential candidates including Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both addressed AFF events while in Iowa. When the AFF spent over $600,000 attacking Martha Coakley in her race against Scott Brown earlier this year, the firm McCarthy Marcus Hennings produced the ads. McCarthy Marcus Hennings also lists the American Hospital Association, the American Insurance Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Business as clients, in addition to the Republican Governors Association, the NRSC, the NRCC and numerous Republican officials such as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. As a 501(c)4 non-profit, AFF does not have to disclose its donors to the public. Dan Morain, the senior editor of the Sacramento Bee, wrote that groups like the AFF “operate in the shadows. Their donors are anonymous. The power behind them is rarely apparent. It’s impossible to track the exact amounts they spend on campaigns in any timely fashion.” The editorial board of Iowa’s Quad City Times asked the AFF “to let 1st District residents know who is paying for the billboards and ads in our community” after the group began attacking Congressman Bruce Braley, “Our request: Tell Quad-Citians who you are.” Current attacks:

Following a slew of ads smearing the health care reform law, the AFF released an ad trashing Rep. Bruce Braley for refusing to oppose the Park51 Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero. The AFF’s “Mosque” ad compares the project to “the Japanese building at Pearl Harbor,” employs discredited attacks against Park51’s organizer, and ties Braley to the project simply for saying that Iowans shouldn’t make decisions about the zoning of New York City property. In its new ads targeting vulnerable Democratic incumbents and Democrats running for open seats, AFF knocks the candidates’ support for Nancy Pelosi, and even blames Democrats who voted against health care reform for the law because they voted for Pelosi as Speaker. Furthermore, these ads utilize debunked and misleading attacks against the Stimulus Plan, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and health care reform’s impact on Medicare.

Americans for Job Security

Americans for New Leadership and Liberty.com

Where:

NV-SEN, DE-SEN Americans for New Leadership claims to have spent only $300,000 so far in ads attacking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and supporting his far-right opponent, Sharron Angle. After its first ad, the group was mocked for misspelling Sharron Angle’s name. Although it did not air any ads in the Delaware primary, the organization’s website Liberty.com did create an infamous online video which said that Christine O’Donnell’s primary opponent Mike Castle has a male lover. Who:

The Tea Party-backed group was founded by Tea Party activists Eric Odom and Yates Walker. Both worked on Christine O’Donnell’s successful senatorial campaign against Mike Castle in Delaware’s GOP primary, where Walker served as her spokesman and Odom was involved in online organizing. Previously, Odom and Walker worked for Doug Hoffman’s failed 2009 campaign for Congress. A Tea Party activist, Odom is involved with a plethora of Tea Party groups: he founded the website TaxDayTeaParty.com and the American Liberty Bus Tour, and runs the Liberty First PAC and the American Liberty Alliance, a for-profit organization. Erik Erikson, founder of the prominent conservative blog RedState, criticized Odom’s “tangled web” of Tea Party organizations. Republican activist and Fox News Commentator Dick Morris helped engineer the organization’s growth. Morris asked viewers of Hannity and his email list to donate to Americans for New Leadership, and said in an email solicitation that “the campaign in Nevada to replace Harry Reid is in a desperate situation and needs your help.” Conservative activists Jen Harrington, who worked in the Bush administration, and Brent Husson, the former executive director of the Nevada Republican Party, are also managing the organization. About:

Spokesman Yates Walker told Politico that the group intends to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling: “January’s Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which struck down the law banning corporate spending in elections, paved the way for the new group’s formation, Walker said.” The organization can also raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as an independent committee. Calling itself the right-wing version of MoveOn.org, Americans for New Leadership is attempting to strengthen the conservative “netroots” with its independent expenditure effort and website Liberty.com. Their website says that the organization’s mission is to “keep the American electorate informed and vigilantly guarding against the forces on the left who seek to redefine individual liberty, redistribute wealth, and remake America into a socialist, cradle-to-grave nanny state.” Moreover, the group decries the mainstream media as “infiltrated by the activist left” and says that the “fourth estate has become an accomplice to the progressive left’s assault on individual liberty.” It is focusing most of its resources on opposing Harry Reid’s reelection, and manages the website DumpReid.com. Current attacks:

In a Liberty.com video, an anchorwoman criticizing Delaware Congressman and then-Senate candidate Mike Castle responds an anonymous questioner asking “isn’t Mike Castle cheating on his wife with a man?” by saying, “That’s the rumor.” Americans for New Leadership has launched two ads in Nevada. Their first ad not only originally misspelled Sharron Angle’s name, and also asserted that “Sharron Angle won’t ‘phase-out’ Social Security” and called the charge a “lie.” However, Angle explicitly said in a debate that “we need to phase-out Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized” and that Social Security “can’t be fixed.” In its second ad, Americans for New Leadership repeats the Medicare funding distortion and grossly misrepresents the stimulus plan and the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Center

Club for Growth and Club for Growth Action

Where:

AK-SEN; CO-SEN; FL-SEN; NV-SEN; PA-SEN; WI-SEN; SC-05 Club for Growth Action recently launched a $1.5 million ad campaign to benefit right-wing Tea Party candidates for US Senate. So far, the group has spent over $1 million against Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and nearly $600,000 attacking Michael Bennet of Colorado, and almost $200,000 opposing Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. They have also spent over $700,000 attacking Nevada Republican Sharron Angle’s opponents Sue Lowden (R) and Harry Reid (D), in addition to over $300,000 against Charlie Crist in Florida and more than $200,000 against Rep. John Spratt in South Carolina. In total, Club for Growth Action has spent over $3 million so far, and the Club for Growth’s is spending well over $2.5 million. Who:

Established in 1999 by a group of economic conservatives who sought to overhaul the country’s regulatory system and dramatically reduce the role of government, the Club for Growth has emerged as a serious force in conservative politics. Steve Moore founded the Club for Growth along with Ed Crane, the president of the libertarian Cato Institute, conservative economist Larry Kudlow, Richard Gilder of the right-wing Manhattan Institute, and National Review magazine President Dusty Rhodes. Other conservative institutions tied to the Club for Growth include the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Fair Taxation. The Club’s past President is former Congressman and current GOP Senate hopeful Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and the Club is currently led by former Indiana Republican Congressman Chris Chocola. The organization frequently engages in competitive Republican primaries by attacking the candidates it deems depart from conservative economic orthodoxy. For example, it spent $175,000 attacking Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, and spent over $1.1 million combined in the seven Republican House races where it endorsed candidates. About:

With its ability to forward huge sums to candidates and run attack ads against their opponents, “the Washington-based advocacy group is a political force to be reckoned with in Republican circles,” writes The Los Angeles Times. It aims to spend $24 million on this year’s election. Following the Citizens United ruling, Club for Growth set up Club for Growth Action, an independent expenditure committee which accepts “unlimited individual and corporate contributions.” The Club for Growth is a vocal proponent of privatizing Social Security, establishing private school vouchers, reducing regulations, and lowering and ultimately eliminating corporate, income, and capital gains taxes. The group calls on officials to “embrace” the idea of privatizing Social Security, even exclaiming: “Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!” The Club also opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which would require political organizations to publicly report their donors, and ban foreign-owned corporations from financially participating in elections. Along with running attack ads, USA Today described Club for Growth’s practices of forwarding pooled contributions to candidates: “Since Jan. 1, 2009, for instance, the Club for Growth has tapped its members for $3.8 million that it has passed on to candidates, including nearly $850,000 for RepublicanPat Toomey, the Club’s former president, who is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania.” Current attacks:

Club for Growth Action’s new ads generally highlight issues such as the budget and health care reform. Blaming Senators like Russ Feingold and Michael Bennet for the country’s debt and deficit, the Club forgets that the most significant factors behind the shortfalls include the economic downturn that began under the Bush administration, the Bush tax cut scheme, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Club for Growth supported many of these policies, such as the Bush tax cuts that mostly benefited the wealthiest Americans. In fact, Democratic President Bill Clinton’s administration left the country with a budget surplus and a path towards paying off the national debt. Regarding health care reform, Club for Growth Action repeats the myth that the policy leads to “Big Government Health Care” and “job killing taxes.”

Coalition to Protect Seniors

Where:

AR-SEN; CO-SEN; IN-SEN; MO-SEN; NV-SEN; WA-SEN; IN-09; NV-03; TX-23; As of mid-October, the Coalition to Protect Seniors has spent over $400,000 in ads and mailers criticizing health care reform in the districts of Democratic members of Congress, including: Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado; Sen. Patty Murray of Washington; Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada; Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (who is not up for reelection in 2010); Senate candidate Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana; Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana; Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada, and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez of Texas. Who:

The Coalition to Protect Seniors neither discloses its donors nor lists any information about who founded or manages the organization on its website, and it is unclear if the Coalition even has any members. “The address on the coalition’s filings was a suite in a large office building in Wilmington that seemed to be shared by an array of other businesses involved in the health care, financial services and energy industries,” writes Mike McIntire of The New York Times, and “calls to several of them turned up none that acknowledged knowing anything about the coalition.” About:

The group was established in June of this year and is based in Wilmington, Delaware, and appears to be solely focused on denouncing the recently passed health care reform law. The New York Times reports that the bulk of the Coalition’s advertising funds go to the Fenwick Group, which shares an office with “a broker for seven large health insurance providers, including Aetna, Blue Cross, Humana and United Healthcare.” The Center for Media and Democracy has classified the Coalition as a “front group” for the health insurance industry. Current Attacks:

The Coalition’s two ads can be found on its website, and the most notable ad features a talking baby criticizing health care reform. Both ads contend that the reform law cuts “$455 Billion from Medicare,” and the group’s website alleges that the law “hurts Medicare beneficiaries” and “will cut Medicare benefits.” According to the AARP, however, health care reform would actually lower Medicare costs for seniors while cutting waste in the program: “health care reform will strengthen Medicare by eliminating billions of dollars in waste while lowering prescription drug prices.” The dubious and discredited claim that cuts in Medicare waste would take “money out of seniors’ pockets” has been used by other pro-GOP groups that disapprove of the reform law.

Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity

Where:

CO-03 FL-02; FL-34; MD-01; MD-02; NY-25; PA-03; SC-05; The Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity is spending $900,000 on ads targeting Democratic Congress members John Salazar of Colorado; Allen Boyd and Suzanne Kosmas of Florida; Frank Kratovil and Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland; Dan Maffei of New York; Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, and John Spratt of South Carolina. However, this initial buy appears to be only the beginning for the Commission as Politico reports that the group intends to “raise as much as $25 million” and air TV ads in more than 27 House districts and three Senate races. Who:

Veteran GOP operative Scott Reed, who in 1996 served as campaign manager for Bob Dole’s presidential bid, founded the Commission in the summer of 2010. Reed is a lobbyist who also worked under Mississippi Governor and RGA head Haley Barbour at the Republican National Committee. He also led the American Taxpayers Alliance, a front group for Reliant Energy and Duke Power that worked to defeat politicians who favored greater regulation and oversight of the energy industry. Like the American Taxpayers Alliance, the Commission appears to be a front group for corporations. Reed said that his group and others rely on “the big three stepping into the batter’s box,” which “are the financial services industry, the energy industry, and the health insurance industry.” About:

According to Reed, “Citizens United opened the door for the unparalleled participation by corporations at the financial level.” As a 501(c)4 organization, the Commission does not have to disclose either the corporate or individual sources of its funding. Apparently, the Commission did not even notify the FEC about its spending in key congressional races, which is required by law. The Commission’s website says that it plans to “communicate its public welfare message” through “print advertising, cable television and radio messaging, as well as e-mail and direct mail communications.” The group has partnered with American Crossroads and the American Action Network in what The Wall Street Journal describes as “a $50 million advertising blitz” to attack vulnerable Democratic members of Congress and some Democratic incumbents whose races have only recently become competitive. The Journal also maintains that the three groups are likely to outspend even the National Republican Congressional Committee in supporting Republican candidates for the House. Current attacks:

Political Correction says that the Commission’s new ads, which concentrate on the increasing national debt, make it appear as if “President Obama and Congressional Democrats are wholly responsible for the debt.” According to PolitiFact, the national debt grew by almost $5 trillion during the Bush Presidency: “When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.” The budget deficit and the national debt grew rapidly under Bush, even though he inherited a budget surplus and the country was on track to pay down the debt.

First Amendment Alliance

Where:

CO-SEN; DE-SEN; KY-SEN; NV-SEN; WV-SEN The First Amendment Alliance has so far spent over $800,000 in ads criticizing Democratic Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Harry Reid of Nevada, along with Democratic candidates Chris Coons of Delaware and Jack Conway of Kentucky. Most recently, it decided to spend $300,000 on ads opposing Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Who:

The First Amendment Alliance is a front group for the energy industry and was founded by Anthony Holm, who established the organization in October of 2008 as a 527 political organization. Holm is a principal at the Texas-based conservative consulting firm the Patriot Group. He represents Texas Governor Rick Perry’s campaign and also serves as a spokesman for major Republican fundraiser Bob Perry and his company, Perry Homes. Most recently, Holm was tied to a GOP scheme to place a Green Party candidate on the ballot for governor in order to take away votes from Rick Perry’s Democratic opponent. The First Amendment Alliance received “seed money” from Bob Perry, who also contributed $4.45 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 and recently donated $2.5 million to the Republican Governors Association. About:

On its website, the organization says “we communicate instances of waste, fraud, hypocrisy, and general disregard for standards of civility in society,” and its contact information only lists a mailbox in Alexandria, Virginia. The First Amendment Alliance, like American Crossroads, is a “Super PAC” which is allowed to raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations, and can “explicitly urge voters to oppose or support a candidate in an election.” According to a review of the group’s recent FEC filings, it’s clear that the First Amendment Alliance is a sham group for the energy industry. Nearly every single donor, including businesses and individuals, has links to the energy industry. Of the 73 contributors, 39 are businesses and 34 are individuals, and 70 of the donors are clearly tied to the oil and gas industry. The group raised close to $1.1 million, and of that amount more than $300,000 came from businesses tied to the energy industry and over $600,000 came from individuals with energy connections. The group’s most generous donors include oilman Russell Gordy, who contributed $150,000, and Clayton Williams of Clayton Williams Energy and Earl Rodman of Rodman Petroleum, who both donated $100,000. The Anschutz Corporation donated $50,000, and Melange Associates and Chisos LTD, which are both involved in oil and gas exploration, gave $25,000 each. And of course, Bob Perry gave the Alliance a $50,000 contribution this year. Current attacks:

The First Amendment Alliance’s ad against Jack Conway was so misleading that one TV station pulled it from the airways. In the ad, the First Amendment Alliance used information showing the increased numbers of meth-labs shut down by police officers as evidence that the number of meth-labs increased while Conway was Attorney General. In essence, it used statistics pointing to increased effectiveness by Kentucky law enforcement to deceptively claim that Conway was unsuccessful in fighting drugs. Conway actually presided over the largest drug-bust in state history, and the Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police cited Conway’s achievements in cracking down on drugs as one of the reasons the group endorsed him. The Glasgow Daily Times reports that “Barren County Sheriff Chris Eaton says law enforcement ‘would be lost’ in the war on drugs if it weren’t for federal help, funding assistance opposed by Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul.” Paul, Conway’s Republican opponent, also asserted that drug abuse was not “a pressing issue” in the state. In its Delaware ad, the First Amendment Alliance accuses Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons of “bankrupting New Castle County,” even though the county under Coons’s leadership received a triple-A bond rating, which Moody’s Investors Services said “reflects the county’s strong financial operations bound by conservative policies.” Despite such proof of sound fiscal leadership, the First Amendment Alliance falsely claims that Coons is responsible for an “economic train wreck.”

The New Prosperity Foundation

US Chamber of Commerce

Corporate Defenders and Mouthpieces

The growth of pro-corporate independent expenditure committees coincided with a more intensified effort to defend corporations’ more powerful role in politics. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education is “akin in my view to the Citizens United case,” and that desegregating schools was similar to allowing corporations greater access to the political process. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who The Hill described as “a longtime and vehement opponent of campaign finance reform,” even filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Citizens United. Business interests, Tea Party groups, and pro-corporate advocacy organizations have staunchly opposed legislation intended to check corporate power in elections and bring more transparency to politics. They often argue that regulations on corporate involvement in elections are an attack on free speech itself. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of the leading opponents of attempts to quench corporate influence in politics. The Hill profiled the Chamber’s intense lobbying against the DISCLOSE Act which one Hill aide called “borderline thuggish,” saying that “the Chamber has threatened [multiple vulnerable members] with ads against them if they vote for the bill.” FreedomWorks, a Tea Party mainstay led by former House Republican leader and corporate lobbyist Dick Armey, is rallying Tea Party groups against legislation like the DISCLOSE Act. FreedomWorks has ties to Americans for Prosperity, as both groups used to be apart of Citizens for a Sound Economy, and received significant funding from the pro-corporate Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation. In fact, the DeVos Foundation helped finance Citizens United’s successful legal challenge to restrictions on corporate electioneering. The leading advocacy organization against all campaign finance reform efforts is the Center for Competitive Politics. The group’s main purpose is to legalize greater and more direct corporate involvement in politics, and to thwart public financing systems. The CCP filed an amicus brief in support of Citizens United and actively resists state and federal steps towards the public financing of elections, which it blasts as taxpayers’ “subsidizing political campaigns.” The Brennan Center for Justice described the group’s research as “unscientific and unsupported,” and unable “to demonstrate any problem” with public financing. The CCP was founded by Bradley Smith, a former FEC head and a principal opponent of corporate restrictions in public affairs. The Washington Post referred to his views as “quite radical,” and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that “sending Brad Smith to the FEC is akin to confirming a conscientious objector to be Secretary of Defense.” The Center’s President, Sean Parnell, previously worked at The Heartland Institute, a pro-corporate ‘think tank’ that promotes Climate Change denialism and combats regulations on the tobacco, agriculture, and insurance industries, and receives financial support from the fossil fuel industry and the rightwing Olin, Koch, Scaife, and Walton Foundations. Pro-corporate activists attempt to conflate reasonable restrictions on corporate involvement in politics with censorship. The head of Citizens United, David Bossie, wrote that since Elena Kagan argued Citizens United on behalf of the government as Solicitor General, she effectively believes that “the government has the authority to ban books and other forms of communication.” The Center for Competitive Politics said that the Citizens United ruling was about preventing “government bans on books.” Essentially, they argue that the avalanche of corporate financing in campaigns benefits the democratic process, and any restrictions are a form of draconian government suppression of speech. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when reacting to the Citizens United decision, said that “no state can possibly benefit from having that much money injected into a political campaign.” Because of their massive financial and legal resources, corporations already have significant sway over public officials, and their clout has only increased as a result of Citizens United. With the ability to drown out the voices of real individuals and ordinary citizens, corporations in the post-Citizens United era have more ways to promote their agenda and silence their critics.

Conclusion