In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the recent Citizens United v. FEC case — which overturned campaign finance law that barred corporations and unions from paying unlimited sums for political ads and was widely hailed by conservatives as a victory for first-amendment rights — Democratic leaders in Congress have begun taking steps to circumvent the decision.
Reports the Financial Times:
Senior Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation yesterday that would force some of the most powerful political organizations in the US – including the US Chamber of Commerce on the right and MoveOn.org on the left – to reveal the names of the corporations and individuals who fund their advertising campaigns.The bill also would require CEOs to announce that they “approve this message” during advertisements and would prohibit recipients of federal bailout money from spending money on elections. (An executive summary of the bill’s main points is here at Business Insider.)
The proposal would also force US corporations to notify shareholders immediately of “all political expenditures” and bar companies that have “foreign ownership” of more than 20 per cent from spending money on US elections.
The bill, which will be formally introduced at the end of the month, was written with the support of the Obama administration by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. It represents a remarkable attempt by Congress, controlled by the Democratic party, to neuter a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling last month.
During his State of the Union address last month, President Obama indicated that he was disappointed that the ruling “reversed centuries of law” and that he would like to see a legislative solution.
“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities,” the president said during the speech. “I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
In announcing the bill, Sen. Charles Schumer echoed these complaints.
“The Supreme Court shattered nearly a century of US law curbing the influence of corporations in our election process. With this bill we are beginning to pick up the pieces,” he said.
The comments have drawn controversy from experts who dispute both the president’s claims and Schumer’s. Writes Heritage:
First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law….In light of both this controversy and the current political climate in Washington, some doubt that the unusual attempt to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling through legislation is an effective use of political capital in the months ahead of the 2010 elections. However, a recent poll suggests that over 60% of Americans disapprove of the ruling — while that same number favors abandoning the health care bill.
The President’s second point about those evil foreign corporations is also totally wrong. 2 U.S.C. § 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures – and this ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court….It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections.
Daily Caller
