Is the Washington Post story on the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court opinion and the public’s reaction to it dishonest, sinister, or just incompetent? I’m not sure, but I am sure of this: it is a classic example of why polls are a terrible way to guide national policy and lawmaking. The Post article begins…
“Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”
The statement is false and misleading. Whatever the merits or deficiencies of the Citizens decision may be, the vast majority of the American public has no idea what the Supreme Court ruling was, or why it was made. American might oppose the predicted results of the ruling, but they do not have the information necessary to oppose the ruling itself. Not that this stops opponents of the ruling from jumping up and down with glee at the Post’s poll: Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said the polling shows the Court is out of touch with American public opinion about the influence of money in the electoral process. “The Post poll demonstrates that the American people fully understand and overwhelmingly reject what the Court has done,” Wertheimer said in a statement. “It’s hard to conceive of another Supreme Court ruling in which five Justices have found themselves so out of touch with the American people.”
Well, you know what, Fred? The Supreme Court exists specifically because the public is unqualified to make legal distinctions regarding difficult issues of law and the U.S. Constitution. The Court, in fact, should ignore the public completely; that’s why the Justices are appointed for life, and why they don’t stand for election. I’m quite sure the Supreme Court was “out of touch” with the public on Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade too. Please don’t insult our intelligence by asserting that the public “fully understands” what the Court has done, or what the Court ever does, to be unkindly frank. This was a Constitutional Law ruling, and if there is one thing we know, it is that most of the public does not understand the Constitution. That’s why we have a Supreme Court, in fact: very few people understand the Constitution.
Or, I’m afraid, believe in it. The Citizens United opinion was not in favor of wild corporate political spending; it was in favor of the First Amendment. Did any of the poll takers listen to or read the transcript of the oral arguments? The Obama Administration’s attorney took the position that the Federal Election Laws could and should ban not only ads and movies, but also books. Does that set off any alarms with the public? It might, except that’s not the question the Post asked. What it asked was this:
“Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?”
As The Center for Competitive Politics president Sean Parnell pointed out, the Post’s question misrepresents the opinion. The kind of corporate spending approved by the Supreme Court in Citizen’s must be independent of candidates and parties. The Post’s question was incompetently/unethically/unscrupulously phrased to provoke a negative response, and it got one.
If the Washington Post, which opposed the decision along with most Democratic-leaning newspapers (which, as corporations with special First Amendment protections, can spend and say whatever they like in support of, or opposition to, political candidates, but which feel it is dangerous for other organizations to be able to exercise the same right) really wanted to present the poll in a fair perspective, it should have also asked if wealthy people should have the right “to spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections”—including, in many cases, themselves, like New York Mayor Bloomberg, Sen. John Kerry, and others. Would the public “fully understand” that guaranteed Constitutional right, and signal its full approval? I am very sure the public would not, but the Post didn’t ask.
There have been many polls showing that significant segments of the American public don’t agree with the broad guarantees of the Bill of Rights, and the recent Post poll is just one more of these. I think an open debate about the pros and cons of giving organizations the right of unlimited speech is healthy (although the Citizens opinion doesn’t give them that), but efforts to use badly worded poll questions to justify abridging First Amendment principles are unethical, one way or the other.
3 thoughts on “The Citizens United Opinion and the Post’s Unethical Poll”
I had wondered myself about why the Supreme Court should be in touch with mainstream America. A classmate of mine used that line of logic in a discussion with me and then stated that the Supreme Court is archaic and needs to be abolished. I pointed out that neither of us understands the law enough to have a valid opinion on this case. Undeterred, he reminded me that all opinions are equally valid. Wouldn’t that make the SC decision OK then, I wondered? Is there (highly educated) opinion valid?
No, of course not! There opinion is wrong.
I try not to discuss current events with this classmate anymore.
The really amazing thing about all this is that the Post, and other newspapers, think Congress can actually do something about the decision through legislation, and have called on them to do so.
I guess the concept of a Supreme Court decision only makes sense to this bunch when it favors their position. Congress cannot modify that decision — it has become Holy Writ as far as U.S. law is concerned. The only thing Congress can do is propose an amendment, which of course, they won’t.
Given this fact, why is the Post even asking this question? All the public anger in the world won’t make one whit of difference. It didn’t in Brown v. Board of Education or Rove v. Wade, and those were far, far more divisive than this decision.
Unethical? Unquestionably. This was a deliberate attempt to smear the Court as retribution for goring their ox. It won’t work, nor should it.
People, people. We all know that polls are scams. Either they are worded specifically to confuse the respondent, or ask questions the pollster knows in advance the respondent knows nothing about.
In the dark ages — when I was in high school — we had to take a “Civics” class, which went into great detail about the Constitution, the workings of government, etc. Now, I have learned (and not from Jay Leno, though he is a case in point) that many states will begin teaching history beginning in 1877 — the end of Reconstruction — because it may be more “accessible” to 21st century students!
Woe to us all. A citizenry that doesn’t understand the basic concept of the three branches of government and their various roles. It seems to me that the media should see the writing on the wall, and pick up where schools have left off… that is, providing necessary historical context to (one hopes) provide the background necessary for the public to understand what is going on in government. On the other hand, watching TV news lately, I am not at all reassured that they’re up to it.