Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


The Monitor's View

The next battle in campaign finance reform

Lawmakers in Congress have unveiled legislation to temper the Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited spending by corporations and unions on political campaign ads. They could use help from Republicans who have supported campaign finance reform in the past.

By the Monitor's Editorial View / April 30, 2010



Once a Supreme Court ruling has been issued, overturning it can be as hard as the white marble of the justices’ stately building.

Skip to next paragraph

It can be done through constitutional amendment, which is slow and arduous. It can be done, perhaps, through another high court ruling, which depends on a new case and the mix of justices hearing it.

The best that can be hoped for is legislation that tries to mitigate the effect of a ruling. That’s what some lawmakers in Congress are attempting with proposed legislation on campaign finance.

This week, members of the House and Senate – mostly Democrats – unveiled legislation dubbed the “Disclose Act.” It attempts to blunt the court’s regrettable decision in January to overturn a previous campaign finance law, thus opening the floodgates of corporate and union spending in elections.

The court did not shine in its 5-to-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. It broke with precedent by allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions on political campaign ads.

The majority found that corporations and labor unions have the same First Amendment right of free political speech that individuals have. With that, they opened up a broad river channel for deep-pocket special interests to drown out the voices (donations) of individual citizens.

The House and Senate bills, which were worked out with the White House, are strongest in their requirement of transparency – the core of the legislation.

These bills reasonably require corporations, unions, and advocacy groups to identify themselves on ads they pay for. A corporate chief executive officer or union or other leader would have to offer an “I approve this message” type of endorsement for an ad. Additionally, these groups would have to disclose their election spending to shareholders, members, and the public through their annual and periodic reports and, within 24 hours, on their websites.

The US Chamber of Commerce, which acts as an umbrella advocate for businesses, vigorously opposes the legislation. It argues that the bills stifle free speech. But it’s hard to see how the chamber can launch a credible fight against the transparency aspects, since the Supreme Court has upheld disclosure.

Permissions