Litigation

Citizens United: Back to Planet Reality

By Charlie Hall

Has the Citizens United whirlwind begun with a small dust devil down in Texas?

When the Supreme Court issued its controversial ruling, it seemed to have a sanguine view of what it means to let corporations and unions spend freely on political elections. After all, organizations have as much right as the next breathing, bleeding citizen to advance their interests in the political arena.

Now East Texas has welcomed us to our brave new world (see this Gavel Grab post). Larry Durrett, president of KDR Development Inc., has used his company?s money to run newspaper ads against incumbent state Rep. Chuck Hopson. What is KDR Development Inc.?s corporate interest? The answer should be obvious. Rep. Hopson had the temerity to defeat Durrett in a 2006 election.

In the judicial world, we saw a similar dynamic in 2004, when coal executive Don Blankenship was on a mission to remake West Virginia?s Supreme Court, at the very time his company was on the wrong side of a $50 million jury award. Will Blankenship and others, in their quest for a more friendly lineup at the courthouse, keep their hands out of the corporate cookie jar? Or will they follow Durrett’s example, to settle old scores and send a powerful message to judges: cross our company at your own risk.

All of this is a reminder what can happen when executives spend other people?s money on elections, according to their vanity and whim. If we want a motto for post-Citizens United democracy, we can start with this pithy gem on why Durrett is using corporate money, and not his personal funds, to pay for newspaper ads attacking Hopson: “You take the money out of the pocket that’s got some money in there.”

Maybe KDR Development is a small company, and maybe Durrett is a 100 percent owner who in effect is spending only his own cash. Or maybe not. But consider the same scenario at bigger corporations, even a midsized coal company like Blankenship?s Massey Energy Co.

It?s enough to make defenders of fair courts and clean government shudder. And it?s an illustration of why new laws would help company shareholders   apply a cool, damp cloth whenever their CEOs catch the political fever.

-Commentary by Charles Hall. All positions are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect Justice at Stake policies

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 24, 2010 (boomark / email).