Litigation

Bills Seek Sunlight on Corporate Political Spending

By Peter Hardin

To soften the impact of Citizens United, leading Democrats introduced bills in Congress requiring corporations to identify themselves in political ads they pay for, and to disclose their expenditures to shareholders and the public.

The legislation would “shine a light on the flood of spending unleashed by the Citizens United decision,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said in remarks on the steps of the Supreme Court, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The high court issued the campaign finance ruling, permitting unlimited corporate and labor union spending on elections, in January.

The bills introduced by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., also would require a corporate CEO or other top official to state on camera that they stand by the message in the ad, according to articles in the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun.

State and congressional leaders have scrambled to draft legal or legislative responses to the blockbuster ruling, many of them seeking to build on the high court’s also upholding existing disclosure requirements.

President Obama praised the legislation:

“The legislation introduced today would establish the toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests so the American people can follow the money and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign activity and trying to buy representation in our government.”

But Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, assailed it as “not about reform, transparency, accountability or good government.” He added:

“It is about election advantage, plain and simple. An effort to disregard the First Amendment and defy the Supreme Court in order to limit the speech of those who may disagree with you is an effort that has no place in this country.”

Election-law expert Richard Hasen of  Loyola Law School in Los Angeles predicted that the legislation faces political and legal challenges. “It is unclear whether this Supreme Court, which has shown a lot of hostility to campaign finance regulation, would be willing to uphold this,” he said.

Two Republicans, Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Mike Castle of Delaware, co-sponsored the House version of the legislation, according to FoxNews.com.

When the high court issued its ruling, Justice at Stake said the decision posed grave dangers to America’s elected state courts. You can read the JAS statement by clicking here, or click here to see the JAS amicus brief in the case; you can visit Gavel Grab to learn how state legislators and executive branch officials have responded.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 30, 2010 (boomark / email).