Democrats seek corporate disclosure election contributions

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Democrats seek corporate disclosure
The legislation comes in response to a controversial Supreme Court ruling.
Posted April 29, 2010 12:50 PM
The Swamp

by Kim Geiger and Clement Tan

A group of Democratic senators today proposed a legislative solution to
the controversial Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited corporate
spending on advertising and other efforts to influence election campaigns.

The bill is aimed at curbing any uncontrolled role that corporations
could play in financing elections following the high court's ruling in
Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission earlier this year.
That ruling struck down federal limits on corporate spending in
elections as a violation of freedom of speech.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the bill would "shine a light on the
flood of spending unleashed by the Citizens United decision." The
influential senator hopes to win passage of the bill by July 4, in time
to curb any flow of corporate money into the 2010 midterm congressional
elections. Sponsors have dubbed the bill the "Democracy Is Strengthened
by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act'' - for "DISCLOSE.''

The bill would require the CEO or head of an organization that is the
primary financial sponsor of a political ad to claim responsibility for
the ad by appearing on camera. Corporations and advocacy groups would be
required to create traceable campaign accounts and disclose within 24
hours the source of donations that exceed $1,000.

The bill also would ban expenditures by any corporation with at least 20
percent of its stock owned by foreign nationals, or if foreign nationals
play a dominant role in the corporation's leadership.

"I welcome the introduction of this strong bipartisan legislation to
control the flood of special interest money into America's elections,''
President Barack Obama said today. "Powerful special interests and their
lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American
people.''

Schumer was joined in his announcement - staged at the steps of the
Supreme Court -- by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and
Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

"No longer will groups be able to live and spend in the shadows,"
Schumer said, adding that the bill "levels the playing field so that
special interests do not drown out the voice of the average voter."

Democrats have been concerned that the Citizens United ruling could give
the Republican Party an unfair advantage, as major corporations tend to
support Republicans over Democrats. Republicans counter that Democrats
enjoy the favor of powerful labor unions -- also big political spenders .

Schumer said the bill had been drafted to "fastidiously" avoid an
advantage for either political party.

Schumer said "a good number'' of Republicans "have told us that they are
very favorably disposed to the legislation." Yet, Republicans were
noticeably absent from the morning announcement.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (D-Ky.) called the announcement
"beyond suspicious," and charged that the bill is "about election
advantage plain and simple."

In the House, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) will be joined by two
Republicans, Reps. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) in
unveiling a similar bill this afternoon.

Among those absent from the Senate proposal today was Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), who with Feingold had sponsored campaign financing
limitations enacted in 2002.

"Twenty-one Republicans voted for McCain-Feingold and still serve in
Congress," said Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the FEC who now
heads the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes the bill. "The
fact that Democrats were only able to persuade two Republicans to join
their gimmicky bill indicates that the 'DISCLOSE' Act would serve the
interests of incumbents, especially the Democratic majority - not the
public interest."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been criticized for providing an
avenue for corporations to finance political ads without assigning the
corporate name to the ad, is a specific target of the legislation.

"They want to hide, so they give the money to the Chamber of Commerce,"
Schumer said of large corporations. "It will not be the Chamber of
Commerce getting up and saying they paid for this ad. There will be no
hiding."

Chamber President and CEO Thomas Donohue called the bill which is to be
introduced in the House, "a thinly veiled attempt to hijack the
political playing field...on the eve of mid-term elections."

In his State of the Union address earlier this year, Obama strongly
criticized the court for its ruling, and pressed Congress to take
legislative action. If passed, the legislation could hold sway long
enough to limit spending in 2010, but would almost certainly face an
eventual court challenge.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********