DISCLOSE Campaign Finance Act Fails to Clear Senate Hurdle

Posted on July 27, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman

On Tuesday, supporters of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act (S. 3628) failed to gain sufficient votes to advance the measure in the Senate. By a vote of 57-41, the motion to invoke cloture on the bill fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end debate. This campaign finance legislation would require most organizations to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the origins of the funds used for political advertising, and place strict limits on political spending by most federal contractors and foreign-controlled companies. This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC released earlier this year that eased the ban on corporate and union political spending by holding that such restrictions are unconstitutional.

Last month, the House of Representatives narrowly cleared its version of the bill (H.R. 5175) by a 219-206 margin. Provisions in this draft seen as carving out exceptions for labor unions had drawn heavy fire from the business community. While the Senate version removed some of the offending provisions, it still includes sections that limit spending by companies with significant federal contracts or a high percentage of foreign investors, restrictions that largely do not affect labor unions.

Photo credit:  MBPHOTO, INC.

Tags: , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Supreme Court Eases Ban on Corporate, Union Political Spending

Posted on January 22, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman

U.S. Supreme Court buildingIn a narrowly-held decision that could have a significant impact on the 2010 mid-term elections, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (pdf) reverses the Court’s opinion in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. FEC that upheld restrictions on such spending to endorse or oppose political candidates. The matter was brought by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group that sought to release a documentary critical of then-Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 campaign. Citizens United challenged Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules that implemented the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that prohibits the broadcast or transmission of “electioneering communications” sponsored by corporations and unions close to elections. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed with Citizens United, ultimately siding with the FEC. On appeal, the Supreme Court initially heard arguments in March of 2009, but ordered a re-argument on whether the campaign finance restrictions violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment, and whether the aforementioned campaign finance cases should be overruled. In deciding these two issues in the affirmative, Justice Anthony Kennedy reasoned: “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” and that “there is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations.”

In a long and vigorous dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens emphasized that the “conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case,” adding “[o]ur lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

The result of this decision is sure to be felt in the coming months as the nation prepares for the fall elections. A substantial amount of money will no doubt be spent by both corporations and unions on media campaigns for and against particular candidates.
Tags: , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link