In recent weeks, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the AFL-CIO have begun to use the new Citizens United rules to promote their preferred candidates.... In a television ad that started airing late last month, AFSCME whacked Lincoln for moving her family permanently to Washington and taking money from corporate interests....We shouldn't pretend ads don't work, but they don't work the way people who spend money on them want. For one thing, we get to see who paid for the ad, and if we're too dumb to put 2 and 2 together, we don't deserve a democracy. Arkansans could see that the unions wanted to get rid of Lincoln.
This ad is an example of "express advocacy"—defined as explicitly telling the public to vote for or against a specific candidate. Before the Citizens United ruling, corporations, unions, and other independent groups could only run express advocacy ads if they were funded by political action committees, which are restricted to $5,000 donations each year from individuals.... Now, those groups can use any funds for these campaign efforts....
Campaign finance experts say the AFSCME ad is a good example of what’s possible in a post-Citizens United world....
So it's nice to get a glimpse into what Citizens United will really mean:
Unions deployed "express advocacy" ads—which urge viewers to vote specifically for or against a certain candidate—using their own general funds, something they couldn’t do a year ago. And even then, they couldn’t push their man over the top.....Of course, if unions aren't going to get much value out of the new power of free speech under Citizens United, the decision should become even more unpopular among those who already oppose it because it gives power to corporations. But I think there's a good chance that people will be skeptical of the express advocacy ads coming from corporations too. I think we're smart enough to think: They're for him? Then I'm against him.
