Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lawmakers Call for Restrictions on Political Ads
WASHINGTON — Corporations and unions would have to identify themselves on political ads they bankroll, and the CEO or top official would have to make "I approve this message" statements under legislation being introduced in Congress Thursday.
From left, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. take part in a campaign finance news conference in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, April 29, 2010. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg) The measures are a direct
response to a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in January that upheld the
First Amendment rights of such groups to spend money on campaign ads — a
decision that greatly enhances their ability to influence federal
elections.
"At a time when the public's fears about the influence of special interests were already high, this decision stacks the deck against the average American even more," Sen. Charles Schumer told a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court building.
The New York Democrat was joined by other Democrats, including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a campaign finance legislation veteran. He said the ruling in the Citizens United case was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this distinguished body."
The bill had no Republican sponsors, but Schumer said Democrats were talking to GOP lawmakers and "a good number" were favorably disposed.
A House group led by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a member of the Democratic leadership, and two Republicans, will hold a similar news conference later in the day.
Opponents of the ruling say it overturned established law and that it dangerously tilted the power balance away from individual candidates and voters and in the direction of deep-pocketed corporations and unions. Supporters argue that in addition to abridging the freedom of speech, those seeking to limit campaign spending are serving the interests of better-funded incumbents.
President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address last February, said the ruling "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."
Saying "sunlight is the best disinfectant," Obama urged Congress in a statement Thursday to act quickly "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."
The proposed bill would also bar foreign-controlled corporations and government contractors from spending money on U.S. elections, and prohibit political spending by companies that received government bailout money.
The top financier of an ad would be required to record a stand-by-your-ad disclaimer message to prevent organizations from funneling money through shell groups to hide their identity. Corporations and unions must also disclose campaign-related spending on their websites and report that spending to shareholders and members.
Schumer said he expected the case to be a factor in considering Obama's pick to replace retiring John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. "The next nominee must be someone who will understand how the court's decisions affect people in the real world. Because, in the Citizens United case, the current court didn't."
The lawmakers say their goal is to have the legislation enacted by July 4, in time for it to be put into effect before the November election. They said the measure could significantly reduce the anticipated flood of special interest spending on ads.
"There will be no hiding," Schumer said. "Once sunlight occurs they shrivel up and don't do them."
"We expect a major battle," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said it will "fight any and all attempts to muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion," and the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has long been a fierce opponent of putting limits on campaign spending.
But Wertheimer said the Supreme Court was clear that laws requiring greater disclosure are constitutional. "We think we have a powerful case," he said.
McConnell noted in a statement that both Schumer and Van Hollen have been leaders in party efforts to elect Democrats to Congress. "Make no mistake about it, the campaign finance bill introduced this morning is not about reform, transparency, accountability or good government. It is about election advantage, plain and simple."
7 Comments so far
Show AllSchumer is a lying Zionist fop. Let's see him turn down AIPAC vampire bribes.
What posturing by lowlifes.
D'accord.
Citizens United needs to be addressed by a constitutional amendment stripping corporations of personhood.
There are many ways to eliminate corporate personhood.
My take is that this is important and necessary legislation because of the terrible decision made by five corporation-embracing members of the Roberts' Supremes.
I am amazed that there have been only five responses to this article. As I write this now, mine will be the sixth or seventh.
Perhaps the meaning of this Supreme Court decision by the Roberts'FIVE in January, 2010, has not sunk in yet or is not yet understood by the general public and the majority of those who come to the Common Dreams site. By this Supreme Court decision, our electoral process was given away to the corporations, the powerful and rich and special interests.
The decision by the Supremes for no limits on corporate giving and no limits on corporate use of monies allows for the making and breaking of candidates in our electoral process. Again ... this decision handed over the power to select our leadership to the mega-corporate powerful and the mega-rich and the corporate-supported special-interest groups.
Nullified by this Supreme Court decision was the possibility of a true grassroots' People's choice of a candidate, who sincerely stands for the rights and well-being of the people. Dennis Kucinich, despite his lapse in signing the nightmare of a health care bill, is one of those for-the-people candidates as is the independent Ralph Nader, although Ralph is getting on in years. Both of these men have been blocked in various ways in their attempts to run for the presidency.
We know that in our on-going and present electoral sham, candidates have to bow and scrape to get major corporate money to run at all because of major monies required now for super-expensive paid media advertising, especially on television networks and cable television. Any candidate also needs major monies for all of the other expenses required of a nationwide presidential campaign.
The terms of the law proposed by Senators Schumer, Feingold et al, and supported by President Obama are very, very important to maintain some fairness to our electoral process.
I have not been happy ... in fact, I've been horrified ... at the AIPAC influence and other influences by foreign governments and the toadying to Israel in both houses of Congress which overwhelmingly passed resolutions that no matter what Israel does to the Palestinians and other peoples of other nations, the United States is four-square behind them in the interests of Israel's alleged "self-defense."
But in this instance, there seems to be a little light at the end of this electoral tunnel. Thus I disagree with the first three knee-jerk responses on this message board vilifying those proposing this legislation to curb corporate influence and mega-rich powers of banks and financial institutions.
Both Feingold and Schumer have been good Senators in working for their constituencies in many important areas.
I am surprised that they are introducing this legislation, but it is an indication that they are honoring their respective senatorial oaths to defend the Constitution and the country's democractic process, instead of giving both of those things away by not responding to the Supreme Court's decision to do just that.
By these Senators and other legislators creating and drafting this legislation in response to the Supreme Court's decision, the concept of Checks and Balances becomes alive and well, at least for this issue.
So let's find out more, and based on what we learn, hopefully we will be encouraged that a few members of Congress have stepped up to the plate to protect The People's interests.
This is an enormously significant issue that is about the making or breaking of our whole process of electing our leadership. Decision by The People or Decision by Corporations?
Of course, Unions will have to affix their names to ads too, according to the proposed legislation, but currently the Unions are not all that powerful, given the outsourcing and relocation of our major manufacturing and the consequent reduction of our union and non-union labor force.
So let us follow this all closely and evaluate carefully what is being proposed and the intent and conduct of the proposers. And maybe and hopefully, there will be a little good news for a change.
For now, at least, based on what I've just read in this article, all of the above is my take.
/cm
We do not need restrictions on political ads, we need campaign reform, public campaign financing and elected officials with a moral conscience.
Until we get these things our country will continue to spiral out of control.