Brennan Center for Justice

Originally posted at Salon.com

Younger
voters -- those in the under-30 crowd like me -- invested an incredible
amount of energy and enthusiasm in the 2008 elections. More of us came
out to vote than ever before. We gave not just our votes but also our
shoe leather and time as campaign volunteers. We showed up at campaign
events by the thousands. And nearly one in 10 of us donated money to a
presidential candidate. As young people, we are discovering a civic
voice all our own, with unique perspectives on many of the challenges
facing the country, and have become a powerful part of the electorate.

The Supreme Court, which begins a new term on Oct. 5, is working on a final decision in a case that could radically threaten our ability to make much difference in politics.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the most important issue is whether the
court will overturn rules that govern corporate electioneering -- that
is, ads that support or oppose a candidate. For decades, legislatures
and the courts have sought to limit corporations' and unions' spending
in elections. This is because these groups' disproportionate ability to
spend massive sums can distort the electoral process.

For decades, Congress has secured the integrity of our
democracy by requiring that corporations and labor unions wishing to
fund advertisements supporting or opposing candidates do so through
political action committees. Instead of allowing corporations to funnel
monies directly from company coffers into campaign war chests, PACs are
funded through individual contributions. Campaign finance law makes it
harder for corporate cash to crowd out the voices of groups -- youth
voters, grassroots activists, minorities -- who are without ready
access to reservoirs of money.

The Supreme Court has so far upheld this balance. The precedents in two cases, McConnell
and Austin, that the court is currently considering overturning in the
Citizens United case are only the latest in a long line of decisions
regulating corporate expenditures in elections. But the most recent of
those cases, McConnell, was decided in 2003, and the court's
composition has changed. With a new majority -- specifically, with
Samuel Alito and John Roberts replacing Sandra Day O'Connor and William
Rehnquist -- the Supreme Court now appears to be considering an
about-face on the constitutionality of much of campaign finance reform.
(A lower court just struck down some campaign finance reform in Emily's
List v. FEC.) If the court overturns precedent as radically as many
fear, corporations and labor unions could be able to support or oppose
candidates with funds right out of their treasuries.

Why does this concern younger voters like me? While our
political idealism and passion run deep, our pockets generally do not.
We do give what and when we can, but we certainly cannot afford to
match the kind of massive expenditures corporations and unions can
make. Even as it is, the financial contributions of younger voters to
successful candidates often represent just a tiny part of what those
candidates end up raising. According to the Campaign Finance Institute,
all small donors of any age account for only 6 to 22 percent of the
funds collected by Democratic and Republican senatorial candidates.

The much discussed "small-donor revolution" of the 2008
election, however, signaled a hopeful change toward a broader base of
support for campaigns. An increased emphasis on smaller contributions
was a natural outcome of the campaign finance laws now under threat.
Limits on the size and source of contributions pushed political parties
and candidates to the grass roots, and to youth, for a broader base of
support. Young people played an important role in this shift. Tens of
thousands of young first-time donors gave contributions as small as $10
and encouraged others to do the same. In the aggregate, this made a big
difference, not only because candidates had to cultivate young people
and pay attention to their views, but also because it gave young people
the feeling of being stakeholders in politics and in civic life.

But a bad outcome in the Supreme Court case would
dramatically reverse all this. Giant vested interests in industries
like telecommunications, education, finance, energy and healthcare
could make unlimited expenditures to elect or defeat candidates, all
depending on how those candidates vote. The scale of the difference is
almost unimaginable, on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars,
more than enough to overwhelm the impact of small donors and drown out
any future political opposition to corporate interests in the country.

We as young voters stand out for our opinions on war,
climate change, civil rights and the role of government. And as a
group, we face our own unique set of problems. To take an example from
the current focus on healthcare, over 13 million of us do not have
health insurance, making young adults the nation's largest group of
uninsured Americans. On top of this, we have on average more debt,
mostly from student loans. On a more basic level, we have the most
direct stake in the future health of our planet.

The question is, Will younger voters, or any other
economically disadvantaged group, be able to influence government to
address these issues if the ability of corporations and labor unions to
influence politics is made even stronger? Will the candidates with our
interests in mind be able to compete with opponents backed by wealthier
interests?

If the Supreme Court decides to overturn a century of
precedent, the answers are bleak. But the young people who found their
civic voice in the last election are unlikely to remain silent now. We
may not be able to influence the way the Supreme Court votes, but we
can stand prepared for the worst. Voluntary public funding for
campaigns is one response we can call on Congress to make to the
court's decision. While opening the floodgates on modern corporations'
ability to fund electioneering would have unprecedented consequences,
well-designed public funding systems could at least give serious
candidates a better chance to compete, even if their stances aren't
popular with wealthier interests. Public funding would also help allow
the grass-roots activities we young Americans proved ourselves so
capable of in 2008 continue to make a significant difference. In short,
it would help ensure that we still matter to our democracy, no matter
how the court rules.