ASSUMPTIONS/

ASSERTIONS

[I]ndependent
expenditures (made
by individuals)...
do not give rise
to corruption or
the appearance of
corruption.
- Justice Kennedy writing
for majority, Citizens
United, 558 U.S. 310, 357.

RESPONSES/EVIDENCE/REBUTTALS
Since Citizens United gave the green light to unlimited independent
expenditures, there is substantial evidence that such expenditures can lead
to corruption, even under the narrowest definitions of the word corrupt.
Numerous news reports since Citizens United have documented how
nominally independent spending has been used to unduly influence or
even strike bargains with candidates. For instance, A Utah legislative
investigation found that payday loan companiesfunded about
$450,000in nominally independent ads supporting John Swallow
for state attorney general in 2012secretly coordinated with his
campaign-- in exchange for his promise to shield them from consumer
protection laws. With voters unaware of this, Mr. Swallow won; he
resigned after less than a year in office.
Alabama Governor Don Siegelman wasconvicted of bribery in
2012when he gave a government appointment to a major donor to
an independent group that spent in favor of the governors lottery
initiative.
Members of Congress have themselves explained the power of
independent spending to affect their legislative decisions.In interviews,
members have said that outside spenders have unhealthy expectations
of the elected officials they assist and that there was no question that
Members have corollary expectations that certain groups will come in
and spend independently either for or against them.
Using grand jury and jury trial simulations, a 2016 study by political
scientists from the University of Arizona found that independent
spending can give rise to an appearance of corruption to the ordinary
citizen even under the narrow quid pro quo standard, sufficient to
persuade jurors to endorse prosecution of an elected official who
benefited from independent donations for criminal corruption.