I have thought for some time that the focus on banning corporate and union money in politics was missing the central problem. This issue isn't that some juridical entity is acting politically, it is that organizations whose management is elected on a one-dollar-one-vote basis are making the funding decision in the political sphere, where democracy demands one-person-one-vote. Even Glenn Greenwald pointed out the danger inherent in the traditional approach to campaign finance reform in his partial defense of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. Rather than spending time on unattainable constitutional amendments, I suggest that we refocus on the importance of upholding the principle of one-person-one-vote.
Businesses are not expected to be run on democratic principles. Although there have been experiments in corporate democracy, particularly in Europe, the term "corporate democracy" in the United States usually means something closer to one-dollar-one-vote or making sure that the interests of minority shareholders are duly protected. If there were perfect competition among businesses, there would be no political spending, since competitors who didn't make contributions would be able to undersell those that did. But we all know that perfect competition exists only in introductory economics textbooks.
So how can we address the problem of corporate political spending without running afoul of the Supreme Court's newly enshrined principle of corporate free speech? I think there is a way to skin this cat while at the same time decreasing the cynicism and increasing the political engagement of the public at large.
Business entities are governmental creations subject to state law and, under the interstate commerce clause, federal law. I suggest the following steps to defend democracy from non-democratic (and foreign) business interests:
1. All contributions to political campaigns or PACs and all purchases of political advertising or hiring of lobbyists must be approved, directly or indirectly, on a one-person-one-vote basis by all U.S. citizens in the enterprise who are members or shareholders, regardless of shareholdings, and or employees, regardless of position or salary.
2. Organizations like cooperatives and properly-run labor unions, whose management is elected on a one-person-one-vote basis would be free to make political contributions as they wished.
3. Organizations whose management is not elected on a one-person-one-vote basis could satisfy the requirement by having either (a) a political or social board of directors elected on a one-person-one-vote basis by all members and shareholder and all employees, who would have control over all political spending or (b) a representative on their regular board of directors who is so elected and who would have a veto on any political spending.
This approach would not solve all of the problems, but it does not prohibit any speech. It merely imposes democratic principles on political spending by business entities. But it does it in a way that will both increase the awareness of employees of the political activities of their employers and give them a voice in the political process. This approach could both meet the Supreme Court’s test for corporate free speech and strike a blow for democracy and against the public’s profound cynicism about politics.