For Clean Campaigns: DISCLOSE and Amend

As promised in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's January misruling in the case of Citizens United v.

As promised in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's January misruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC -- which essentially freed corporations to spend whatever they like to buy elections and influence policymaking -- the Congressional Democrats have produced a legislative response.

But, while that response has some merit, it is insufficient -- and potentially doomed.

The House's 219 (217 Democrats, 2 Republicans) to 206 (170 Republicans,
36 Democrats) vote on Thursday approved a version of the "Democracy is
Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" (DISCLOSE) Act,
which is designed to impose a measure of accountability on
corporations. The measure intentions are sound. It would, for
instance, require most groups that run so-called "independent
expenditure" campaign ads to disclose the identities of their top
donors. This requirement is designed to expose the backdoor scheming by
major corporations to promote their favored candidates and agendas
using front groups.

The DISCLOSE Act also bars corporations with government contracts that
are worth more than $10 million, along with corporations that have
accepted federal bailout money, from engaging in independent political
activity. And it bans companies with substantial levels of foreign
ownership from mounting campaigns to influence U.S. elections.

All of these initiatives make sense, as President Obama argued in a
statement hailing the action by the House and urging the Senate to
advance the measure toward his desk.

"I congratulate the House of Representatives on today's passage of the
DISCLOSE Act, a critical piece of legislation to control the flood of
special interest money into our elections," said Obama. "The DISCLOSE
Act would establish the strongest-ever disclosure requirements for
election-related spending by special interests, including Wall Street
and big oil companies, and it would restrict spending by
foreign-controlled corporations. It would give the American public the
right to see exactly who is spending money in an attempt to influence
campaigns for public office. The House bill is not perfect - I would
have preferred that it include no exemptions. But it mandates
unprecedented transparency in campaign spending, and it ensures that
corporations who spend money on American elections are accountable
first and foremost to the American people. I urge the Senate to act
swiftly on its version of the bill, and I look forward to working with
both chambers on prompt enactment of final legislation."

Unfortunately, the exemptions that Obama mentions -- for membership
organizations -- are all but certain to inspire legal challenges that,
considering the character of the high court, will likely be used to
undermine the most significant components of the legislation. (Indeed,
the exemption for the National Rifle Association was so unsettling that
a number of the Democratic "no" votes came from progressive members
representing urban district, especially from members of the
Congressional Black Caucus.)

So, for all the high-minded rhetoric about pushing back at the court,
the prospect remains very real that corporations will be able to meddle
in elections with few constraints -- and perhaps in ways that cloak
their intentions and arrangements.

People for the American Way, one of a number of groups that is
supporting a bolder response to the court's lawless attacks on the
democratic process -- in the form of a Constitutional amendment that
makes clear that corporations do not have the same political rights as
citizens -- had the right reaction to the DISCLOSE Act.

"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United overturned a century
of established law in order to give big corporations unprecedented
influence in our electoral process," said Marge Baker, the group's
executive vice president. "We appreciate the work that members of
Congress have done to try to dampen the effects of this disastrous
decision and restore some transparency and accountability to our
elections. As important as this measure is, in the long run the way to
truly fix the damage done by Citizens United is to pass a
Constitutional amendment to restore our government to the people."

A new poll,
released this week by People For the American Way, finds that 77
percent of Americans--including majorities of Democrats, Independents,
and Republicans--now favor amending the Constitution to reverse the Citizens United ruling
and to assure that the court no longer deliberately misinterprets the
First Amendment to give corporations that power to dominite the debate
and define the results of elections.

According to the poll, 74 percent of Americans say
they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who
favor amending the Constitution to prevent corporations from buying

"It's time," says Baker, "for members of Congress to catch up to their
constituents and pass a Constitutional Amendment that will fully
restore integrity to our democracy."

There are several savvy amendment campaigns that are worthy of note, including Move to Amend and Free Speech for People.

And here is Public Citizen's backgrounder on the amendment fight.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.