President Obama announces his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, right, currently chief judge for US Court of Appeals DC Circuit, in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, March 16, 2016. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)
Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama has nominated to be the 113th justice of the Supreme Court, has yet to take a firm stance on the court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling — the 2010 decision that opened the floodgates for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. The Senate should hold hearings and ask Garland to clarify his position on campaign finance law.
If Garland does not clearly renounce the court’s ruling in Citizens United and related cases, the Senate should reject his nomination. Now is not the time for fainthearted politics of pragmatism. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell chooses to block an anti-Citizens United nominee, then the November 2016 elections will rightfully be a referendum on the Roberts court’s stance on campaign finance.
As a result of Citizens United — one of the most controversial examples of judicial overreach in the modern United States — true power no longer solely resides within our three branches of government, but within a narrow cabal of political campaign donors that decides who can run for office as a viable candidate, who will win elections and what issues will be put forth for debate. Any individual donor doesn’t always see his or her favorite candidate win: Sometimes they lose to other big money candidates. But with the candidate who raises the most money winning nine out of 10 congressional campaigns, big money donors have collectively prevented candidates lacking access to wealth from governing the country.
Any move by President Obama, any nominee or any senator that seeks to dodge the issue of Citizens United would do a fundamental disservice to our country by preventing voters from…