Campaign Finance Ruling Hits Home

(Casper Star Tribune)

By Jeremy Pelzer, Casper Star Tribune, 12/22/2010

CHEYENNE -- In a ruling that could reshape how elections in Wyoming and the nation are run, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday overturned government bans on independent political spending by corporations and labor unions.

While the court ruling only applied to federal campaigns, the decision could soon cause Wyoming's restrictions on corporate and labor union spending to fall as well.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, like individuals, have a first-amendment right to free speech that cannot be checked by the government. Critics responded that giving corporations unchecked ability to dump money into political campaigns will hurt democracy.

The ruling does not affect longstanding bans on corporations and labor unions making donations directly to federal candidates, nor does it change existing contribution limits to federal campaigns or political action committees.

But the decision now allows corporations and labor unions to spend as much money as they like directly on behalf of a particular candidate, as long as they don't collude with the candidate's campaign itself.

Corporations and unions have also circumvented the restrictions by forming PACs, which are allowed to donate to campaigns.

In the wake of Thursday's ruling, officials with the state elections division and the Wyoming Attorney General's office are now discussing potential legislation that would also lift state restrictions on corporate and labor union political spending.

While it's too early to tell exactly what such legislation would look like, the goal would be to bring Wyoming campaign finance law in line with the court ruling so the state wouldn't have to face lawsuits in the future, said state Elections Director Peggy Nighswonger.

University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said that it's too early to tell how the court ruling will change the Wyoming political landscape.

But corporations and unions will only sink a lot of money into competitive races, King said. And U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., has no major competition in Wyoming's only federal race this year.

"All of it depends on the competitiveness of the race," King said.

All three members of Wyoming's Congressional delegation lauded the decision as striking a blow for free speech.

Wyoming Republican Party chair Diana Vaughan agreed, saying the ruling "was a step in the right direction, as our constitutional rights under the First Amendment are protected."

Ben Barr, a constitutional attorney with the Wyoming Liberty Group and a UW graduate, said the ruling will also help average citizens stymied by byzantine elections regulations.

In his majority opinion for Thursday's case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited an amicus brief by Barr detailing how the FEC hindered free speech with its arbitrary, overly complex regulations.

The court decision, Barr said, is a step towards creating the political system envisioned by James Madison, who felt all political factions should be able to speak their mind.

"It's allowing all of these voices to participate vigorously to their fullest extent, including citizen groups," Barr said.

Barr said the ruling will encourage grassroots political movements in Wyoming as well, as most corporations are small.

But the Wyoming Democratic Party said it's big corporations who will benefit from lifting political spending rules.

"We are absolutely 100 percent against it because it's going to give voice to the wealthy corporate interests and it's going to take away the voice from the individual," said Wyoming Democratic Party spokesman Brianna Jones.

Traditionally, Jones said, Wyoming state election campaigns are shorter and less costly than in other states.

"Maybe that will change -- maybe our campaigns will start being longer and maybe we'll start seeing some really high dollars injected into campaigns," she said.

Kim Floyd, director of the Wyoming AFL-CIO, said the ruling could cause "a complete destruction" of the American democratic system.

"When these big international oil companies like Encana and Exxon and folks, they can take profit out of the bank and give to candidates to run for governor or U.S. Senate or Congress. They can buy those elections," Floyd said.

However, Bruce Hinchey, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, also said he had problems with Thursday's ruling.

"I liked the old law," Hinchey said. "I think if the people in a company want to contribute, that's fine, but I don't know if you should use dollars from a corporation -- especially one that is owned by a bunch of shareholders."

Contact capital bureau reporter Jeremy Pelzer at 307-632-1244 or jeremy.pelzer@trib.com