Litigation

Editorials: After ?Citizens United,? New Disclosure Needed

By Peter Hardin

The need for more sunlight on corporate political spending, following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, lies at the heart of editorials in two major newspapers about proposed congressional fixes.

Referring to upcoming legislation outlined by Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Baltimore Sun editorialized that “the approach appears to be right on track: Ban expenditures where possible, toughen reporting requirements, and disclose, disclose, disclose.” The editorial also asked why the proposal lacks provisions for public financing of congressional elections.

A Washington Post editorial labeled the Democrats’ framework an “important proposal.” Letting corporations spend political money secretly–by channeling donations through trade associations or other groups that are not required to disclose donors–is “the most dangerous aspect” of Citizens United, the editorial noted.

The Post editorial went on to describe the mechanics proposed by Schumer and Van Hollen for more sunlight on corporate spending.

In other articles and commentary, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., advocated in Politico for a constitutional amendment to respond to the Supreme Court decision. Fortune Magazine examined “Why the outcry over ‘Citizens United,’” and Fox Business published an article headlined, “Supreme Court Ruling Changes Campaign Landscape for Big Business.” You can read more about Citizens United in Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 16, 2010 (boomark / email).