Supreme Court case to shake up elections

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning restrictions on corporations’ political spending is expected to shake up the upcoming 2010 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina.

Candidates with less money could have a better chance at winning, or corporations could unfairly influence the elections, political experts said.

The ruling, handed down in January, comes at the outset of an election season with 34 Senate seats up for grabs across the country, including that of U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., first elected in 2004.

Burr is seeking his second term in office. Durham attorney Kenneth Lewis, N.C. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall and former N.C. Sen. Cal Cunningham have all announced their intentions to run as Burr’s Democratic challenger.

“It basically changes how the election laws have been administered for well over 20 years,” said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the N.C. Board of Elections.

If corporations use their money to influence public opinion on specific issues, rather than for individual candidates, some say it could even the playing field.

With candidates spending less from their campaign’s pockets, Burr’s huge campaign treasury will be less of an issue for his Democratic challengers, said Thomas Mills, Marshall’s political consultant.

“General Electric may go out and decide they want a particular issue or a candidate to win and can buy ads and spend money to make that happen,” he said.

Leroy Towns, a UNC journalism professor, believes unrestricted corporate spending will make the race fairer.

“It’s usually thought that if corporations spend more money it will benefit Republicans, but it’s been shown that when corporations spend money on campaigns in the past it’s been split pretty evenly,” he said.

“If it appears Burr is vulnerable, then (corporate donors) will be willing to put the money in to beat him.”

But Bob Hall, executive director of the voter advocacy organization Democracy North Carolina, said the changes caused by the ruling will give corporations the power to unfairly influence elections.

“I think the ruling will poison the election process and create a ‘pay-to- play’ kind of politics where everybody is seeking the blessing or worried about the threat of wealthy donors,” he said. “The whole decision makes you think this Supreme Court lives in a fantasy world.”

It’s clear Burr would benefit most if that materializes, Hall said.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Burr has raised $6.7 million this campaign season. None of his unofficial challengers — Marshall, Cunningham and Lewis — have topped $400,000.

Duke Energy and Progress Energy, two of the state’s largest political contributors, said that the ruling will have little effect on their political donations.

Both corporations rank among the five largest contributors to Burr’s campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“The speculation that this means companies spending millions and millions to invest in the political process is ludicrous,” said Mike Hughes, spokesman for Progress Energy.



Contact the State & National Editor at stntdesk@unc.edu.