In his April 8 column, “Unbought and Very Bothered,” Andrew Taban critiques the influence of money in politics and praises Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo for her community leadership, particularly regarding the Chiquita Canyon Landfill issue. While he raises valid concerns about campaign finance, his analysis oversimplifies complex issues and contains inaccuracies that demand a response.
Taban’s portrayal of the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision is a cornerstone of his argument, but it’s misleading. He writes that the Supreme Court “essentially said when it comes to free speech, corporations are equal to people,” allowing them to flood campaigns with unlimited money. This oversimplification misses the ruling’s core focus. The Supreme Court held that restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” The decision wasn’t about equating corporations with individuals but about protecting against government censorship.
Far from being a radical corporate handout, the case reaffirmed a conservative principle: Free speech applies to all, including organized groups like corporations and unions. Taban’s framing ignores this nuance, casting the ruling as a boogeyman for campaign finance woes rather than a defense of constitutional rights.
He further argues that the Republican Party has uniquely “embraced this system of focusing on legislation not for the people, but for their wealthy donors.” This claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Post-Citizens United, both parties have adapted to a landscape of increased campaign spending. According to OpenSecrets data for the 2023-2024 election cycle, Democrats received 51.55% of donations over $100,000, totaling over $1.1 billion, while Republicans garnered 46.28%, or roughly $1 billion. In the 2024 election, Democrats outspent Republicans on campaign ads, investing $4.5 billion compared to $3.5 billion, per AdImpact estimates.
Corporate political action committees also show bipartisan support. The National Association of Realtors PAC and others have historically split contributions across party lines, with some cycles favoring Democrats. Taban’s assertion that Republicans alone have capitalized on this system is a partisan slant, not a fact. Both sides have leveraged wealthy donors and corporate funds.
Finally, Taban lauds Assemblywoman Schiavo for her leadership on the Chiquita Canyon Landfill crisis, highlighting her push for accountability and community relief. Schiavo has indeed been vocal, advocating for a state of emergency and engaging with residents affected by the landfill’s environmental issues. Her efforts are commendable, but Taban’s focus on her alone overlooks the broader response. Supervisor Kathryn Barger, a Republican, has also been instrumental, coordinating with state agencies like CalRecycle and seeking regulatory action to mitigate the landfill’s impact.
By spotlighting Schiavo while ignoring others, Taban paints an incomplete picture. A conservative perspective values recognizing all contributors, not just those fitting a narrative of “unbought” heroism.
His column raises fair questions about money in politics, but his oversimplification of Citizens United, selective blame of Republicans, and narrow praise of Schiavo distort reality.
Nancy Fairbanks
Stevenson Ranch
