Dems try to blunt SCOTUS decision

Politico
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
February 11, 2010 01:21 PM EST

A pair of Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced the framework for legislation intended to minimize the impact of last month’s Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate attack ads.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned that without prompt legislative action, the decision, in a case brought by a previously obscure conservative group called Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission, would yield an explosion of corporate ads in the 2010 midterm elections and beyond.

“Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision opened the floodgates to a torrent of corporate money — that’s the bad news,” said Schumer. “The good news is, there are solutions that can help patch the dam.”

Schumer and Van Hollen sketched the outline of a package of proposals intended to limit corporate ads by increasing disclosure requirements and restricting advertising by foreign-controlled companies, recipients of bailout cash and federal contractors.

They suggested they had the support of the White House, which had been working with the lawmakers’ staffs, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

They acknowledged, though, that they did not have any Republican support, and Van Hollen specifically called out Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a co-author of the seminal 2002 campaign finance overhaul that bears his name, who has distanced himself from campaign finance reform efforts in recent years as he has tacked right.

The decision also affects unions, which lean heavily Democratic. Some campaign finance experts predict the decision won’t have as much effect as Democrats fear, but others expect it could be a net advantage for Republican candidates, since corporate interests tend to favor GOP positions and candidates.

On Thursday, though, Schumer said neither party would emerge the winner as a result of the decision.

“It won’t be Republicans. It won’t be Democrats,” he said. “It will be corporate America.”

The court’s 5-4 decision partially overturned decades of law restricting political spending by corporations, unions and other organizations, on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment-guaranteed freedom of speech. The decision was so sweeping that campaign finance lawyers on both sides of the aisle said it left little room for legislative tweaks to minimize its impact without provoking the ire of the courts.

That’s why some advocates for reducing the role of money in politics quickly floated the idea of a constitutional amendment expressly stating that that corporations — and unions — were not guaranteed the same free speech rights as individuals.

Schumer and Van Hollen decided against proposing such an amendment, which would face a steeper legislative battle and would need approval by two thirds of the states, “because we need to move fast,” Schumer said.

Instead their bills, which they said they intended to introduce in both chambers the week after the coming Presidents Day recess, would restrict ad buys from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, companies that have yet to pay back TARP funds and those that receive federal contracts.

Additionally, the Schumer-Van Hollen bills would heighten requirements for companies to disclose ad buys to shareholders, the Federal Election Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission; would tighten rules prohibiting outside groups from coordinating their ads with candidates, and those requiring identification of companies that pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates. And it would attempt to guarantee access to less expensive air time for candidates being bombarded by corporate funded attack ads.

Asked afterwards which provisions would apply to unions, Schumer said “every provision would apply to unions, every single one. And to 501c3s, 4s, 5s and 527s” — nonprofit groups that have been used by operatives to air attack ads without disclosing their donors.

“The American people should know who is paying for this political advertising,” said Van Hollen. “People shouldn’t be able to hide behind these” groups.

Not included in the Van Hollen-Schumer package is a proposal backed by lawmakers including Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and which the White House has suggested it could support, that would require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections.

“That’s a possibility down the road to be added to this, if they can devise a meaningful structure,” said Van Hollen.

Van Hollen, who has supported broader campaign finance reforms, including providing taxpayer funds for congressional elections, previously told POLITICO those efforts would take a back seat as Congress focused on stop-gap measures intended to blunt the Citizens United decision.

The absence of a so-called public financing program from the raft of proposals laid out Thursday was a disappointment for some advocates of stricter campaign finance rules.

“Voters want bold campaign reform measures,” said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a non-profit group advocating for public financing. He called the Schumer-Van Hollen plans “good first steps, but as a package, they fall short of getting to the heart of the problem of money in politics.”

Other proponents of tougher laws said smaller bore measures like those proposed Thursday needed to come first.

“Rapid-fire action is required to curtail the worst impacts of this decision in time to impact the 2010 elections,” said Lisa Gilbert, a lobbyist who focuses on campaign finance and ethics issues for the non-profit U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “We want to pass the short term reform package first so as to halt as much of the money as possible and for lack of a better term, ‘make the world safe,’ for long-term more systemic reforms like public financing or an amendment” to the constitution differentiating corporations and unions from people for the purposes of the First Amendment.