Nevadans split over free speech expansion
Nevadans are split down the middle over a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that gives corporations and unions the same First Amendment free speech rights as it does individuals, including the right to expend unlimited funds on election advertising, according to a Mason-Dixon poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and KLAS-TV, Channel 8.
What that means in the long term is unclear, but one impact is that the cost of advertising for all Nevada candidates will likely increase, Reno attorney Josh Hicks said.
"I think it depends on the election, but the Angle-Reid race is a good example of a situation where all Nevada elections in this cycle will likely be more expensive than usual," Hicks said.
"The Angle-Reid race is a high-profile race with national implications and therefore attracts national attention. Buying up advertising time limits the amount of open advertising on the market, and means that other candidates will have to pay more for air time than they normally would."
It also gives an advantage to candidates who have more resources, said Hicks, former chief of staff to Gov. Jim Gibbons. Hicks primarily practices public policy and election law.
While Republicans and independents tend to favor the landmark law and Democrats don't, statewide opinion is much closer, with 43 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed and 15 percent not sure.
With a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, that shows a statistical dead heat in opinion on the issue.
It is worth noting that more Republicans (20 percent) and independents (19 percent) are unsure how they feel about the law, while only 9 percent of Democrats make that claim.
Hicks said the opinion, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, will not have "much of an impact" on state and local races because state law allows corporations to bundle contributions. He said the immediate concern is that funding for already cost-prohibitive federal campaigns will skyrocket.
Hicks, who has written extensively on the decision and its potential ramifications, said the ruling "opens the door to extensive privately funded advertising both for and against" the re-election bid of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is in a tight race against Republican challenger Sharron Angle.
Both candidates have benefited from the rule change.
According to the Citizens United Political Victory Fund website, the group contributed $5,000 to Angle for the primary and another $5,000 for November's general election. The group also gave $5,000 to Dr. Joe Heck, a Republican who is running against Rep. Dina Titus, the Democratic incumbent, in Nevada's District 3.
Reid has received more than $14,000 from the Teamsters.
In a nutshell, the new law gives all corporations, including nonprofits, and unions the right to unlimited spending from their general treasuries to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office, providing the spending is "independent" of individual campaigns and the ads don't specifically call for a vote for or against a candidate.
While 53 percent of Democrats polled disagree with the decision compared with 33 percent of Republicans, Hicks said he doesn't see Citizens United as necessarily pro-corporation.
"Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing just depends on perspective, and probably pragmatism as well," Hicks said. "The decision equally allows political advocacy expenditures by nonprofits and unions. Many candidates who decry corporate spending may be happy to receive union support."
According to The Associated Press, the political arm of Citizens United plans to air pro-Angle ads "within days."
Reid's supporters should respond quickly, said Erik Hirzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.
"I think groups already involved in politics will be the first to expand," Hirzik said. "Particularly unions like the (Service Employees International Union) and the Culinary (union) in Nevada."
Hirzik said the notion that Citizens United will "change the world" is overblown.
"This knee-jerk reaction that all corporations are Republicans; I don't know that that's true, and those that are might like Sue Lowden Republicans but not Sharron Angle Republicans."
Like Hicks, Hirzik has little doubt the decision is likely to "bring even more money into the electoral process."
He also said corporations are still trying to figure out what the rules are.
"I don't see BP jumping in with millions of dollars," Hirzik said.
Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512 or read more courts coverage at lvlegalnews.com.
