The major consumer, environmental and citizens groups in Washington, says Consumers Union, spend approximately $3 million annually on all forms of lobbying, "roughly three-tenths of 1 per cent of what business is spending on grassroots lobbying alone."
Perhaps nowhere is the impact of corporate political power greater than on state-wide initiative campaigns. In 1976, the Massachusetts "bottle bill" initiative was defeated, 51 to 49 per cent. Proponents spent $59,000. Opponents spent over $1.5 million, 99 per cent of which was raised form corporate sources rather than from individuals.
An analysis of 1976 initiative campaigns in eleven states concerning both mandatory deposits on beverage containers and nuclear energy led Dr. John Shockly of Western Illinois University to conclude that "In 1976 a record-breaking amount of corporate spending occurred to defeat various measures, and in general their campaigns againt these propositions were successful."
In April 1978 the Supreme Court paved the way for further advances in corporate political power. The Court, in the case of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, declared unconstitutional a Massachusetts state law prohibiting corporations from spending money to influence state-wide initiataive campaigns when the issue at stake does not materially affect them. (Note that even this powerful law could not and did not prevent soft drink manufacturers from spending money to defeat the bottle bill initiative.) Justice Powell, in writing the majority opinion, stated: "[Free speech] is indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is not less true because speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." The Court argued, rather naively it seems, that "There was no showing that the relative voice of corporations has been overwhelming or even significant in influencing referenda in Massachusetts."
Justice White, in dissenting from the majority opinion, put his finger on the crucial point--that corporations are artificial entities chartered by the state for the purpose of economic profit-making and not for the purpose of furthering political goals. The sate is interested in promoting economic development and thus bestows upon corporations special privileges such as the ability to pool capital, limited liability, and perpetual life. "The special status of corporations," argues Justice White, "has placed them in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process."
Congressman Robert Drinan (D-Mass.) has said he feels uneasy about the Bellotti decision. He expressed his doubts at a Congressional hearing in May 1978:
I think the American people have the right and the duty to say that the corporations have fantastic power that nobody in this country has and that they now dominate the political thought in ways which I do not think the Founding Fathers would want. When they come and say "We have the same rights as natural persons, the first amendment applies to us," and that "we can spend all of this money," then I, as a small citizen, am afraid, I am frightened.
The extent of corporate political power is a serious problem and it must be acknowledged if we are to deal with it effectively. There are, however, no easy solutions. Business does have the right to get its views across. Some first steps that have suggested are federal chartering of corporations, public financing of Congressional elections and strict lobbying disclosure laws. It seems clear that something must be done. We must not allow corporations, by virtue of their special financial status, to dominate access to the media, to the electoral process and to our politicians. We must not allow the voices of ordinary citizens to be drowned out in the name of free speech.
Alan Soudakoff is a junior majoring in economics. Last summer he worked as an intern for Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal [D-N.Y.], researching business influence in politics.