Consumer Law

If New Campaign Spending Disclosure Legislation Passes, You'll Know When Exxon Paid for An Ad, But Not When the NRA or AARP Paid For One

By Brian Wolfman

Congress has been discussing legislation to counter the Supreme Court's ruling last Term in the Citizens United case, which held that, under the First Amendment, corporations may independently spend whatever they'd like on campaign ads. Chris Van Hollen (pictured below) , a member of the House from Maryland, is the principal sponsor of a bill that would impose new disclosure rules on corporations, unions, and non-profits. The idea is that if those entities can pour unlimited amounts into campaign ads, at least they should have to tell the viewer/listener where the money is coming from. Corporations don't like this idea. I blogged earlier this month about how badly corporations want to remain anonymous when they fund campaign ads. Among other things, the Van Hollen bill would require corporate leaders, including for-profit CEOs, to appear at the end of ads to say that they "approve this message" or some such. Moreover, when advocacy groups sponsor the ads, their top five contributors must be listed.

Now, the New York Times reports that a loophole has been approved at the behest of the National Rifle Association:

Under the initial compromise, a provision was added to the measure that, without naming the N.R.A., was clearly tailored to fit it and other advocacy goliaths like AARP. The provision was to apply to select nonprofit groups that have existed for more than 10 years, have more than one million members with some in each state, and get no more than 15 percent of their financing from corporations or unions. ... Responding to the outcry [from other non-profits], the N.R.A. compromise was changed Thursday to exempt groups with 500,000 or more members, further diminishing the reach of the legislation even as it appealed to supporters of additional advocacy groups. 

If the bill is enacted, we'll likely see a legal challenge from for-profit corporations who are the law's principal target. I wonder whether we'll also see one from a non-profit that, say, has existed for only 7 years, but meets the law's other criteria for exempting non-profits.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on June 18, 2010 (boomark / email).