Heinrich, Balderas oppose Citizens United decision

Martin Heinrich calls the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision ‘a slap in the face to average Americans;’ Hector Balderas says corporations ‘don’t deserve to have such an outsized influence over our election process.’

This post continues a series on the U.S. Senate and 1st Congressional District candidates’ stances on various policy issues.

Martin Heinrich has co-sponsored legislation proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision; Hector Balderas says he “strongly” supports such efforts.

Heinrich, a member of the U.S. House and a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, said the Citizens United decision, which tossed out limits on political spending by corporations and unions, “opened the floodgates to unrestricted, special-interest campaign donations in American elections – even from entities controlled by foreign governments.”

“Like most New Mexicans, I was outraged,” Heinrich said. “The Citizens United decision was a victory for the Wall Street banks, foreign corporations and Big Oil, but it was a slap in the face to average Americans.”

Balderas, Heinrich’s opponent in the Democratic Senate primary, said the “idea that corporations with interests that run counter to those of the American people can pour unlimited sums into our political system and directly affect the outcome of elections is simply unconscionable.”

“Corporations are not citizens,” Balderas said. “They don’t vote, they don’t serve in the military – and they don’t deserve to have such an outsized influence over our election process.”

The candidates also talked about ethics reform proposals they support.

The candidates made their comments in response to questions from NMPolitics.net about the influence of money in politics and ethics reform. NMPolitics.net gave the candidates no word minimum or limit, telling them to say what they had to say. The only criterion was that they not engage in personal attacks.

Here are the questions NMPolitics.net asked on money in politics and ethics reform:

• The influence of money in federal races is arguably becoming more and more pervasive, especially with the Citizens United decision and the new prominence of super PACs. Do you view this as a good or bad thing? Why?
• Sen. Tom Udall and others are proposing a constitutional amendment that would restore the government’s ability to regulate campaign finance. Do you support that proposal? Why or why not?
• What ethics and transparency legislation would you push if elected?

Their responses, published in their entirety:

Martin Heinrich

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the floodgates to unrestricted, special-interest campaign donations in American elections – even from entities controlled by foreign governments. Like most New Mexicans, I was outraged. The Citizens United decision was a victory for the Wall Street banks, foreign corporations and Big Oil, but it was a slap in the face to average Americans.

“It’s time we put the American voter first and stopped corporate excess in our elections.

“That is why I introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would regulate the raising and spending of funds in elections – regulating Super PACs, which we’ve all seen concentrate money and political power in the hands of the elite and away from working Americans. And recently, I called on the Federal Communications Commission to swiftly implement greater transparency measures in disclosing to voters who paid for political advertisements. With campaign season in full swing and new Super PACs springing up weekly, the public must have access to information about who is funding these ads.

“From my time on City Council fighting for public financing for campaigns to my work in Congress to increase the integrity of our political process with the toughest-ever disclosure laws for big-money-interest campaign spending, I’ve always been a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.

“Our nation’s democracy is founded on the right to vote and the ability of every citizen to participate in that process equally. New Mexicans deserve that kind of transparency and to know who’s trying to influence their vote.”

Hector Balderas

“I am adamantly opposed to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. The unmitigated flow of corporate money into politics is a grave threat to our democracy and must be stopped. The idea that corporations with interests that run counter to those of the American people can pour unlimited sums into our political system and directly affect the outcome of elections is simply unconscionable. The fundamental question in Citizens United is simple: Corporations are not citizens. They don’t vote, they don’t serve in the military – and they don’t deserve to have such an outsized influence over our election process.

“A Democracy should be ‘one person, one vote.’ Citizens United threatens to drown that out. The problems that Citizens United created are being manifested in this election cycle with hundreds of millions of dollars of special-interest money following into so-called ‘Super PACs.’”

“I am strongly in favor of the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado that would overturn the Court’s decision in Citizens United. In addition, when in the United States Senate, I will fight for additional safeguards to eradicate the stranglehold that lobbyists have on Congress. This includes more disclosure of what members of Congress are being lobbied, and by whom; closing the ‘revolving door;’ mandating more transparency in the lobbying process; and enforcing the laws already on the books.’”