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

  • Advertisements

Senate goes back to the drawing board on campaign finance

A Senate committee on Tuesday discussed how to limit the US Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling that opened elections to corporate ads. One suggestion: a constitutional amendment.

By Warren RicheyStaff writer / February 2, 2010

The US Supreme Court on January 21 lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses. The move overturns a ruling made two decades ago which had forced companies to only use specially earmarked funds from a political action committee.

Karen Bleier/AFP

Enlarge

A key Senate committee took its first close look on Tuesday at a possible legislative response to a recent US Supreme Court decision that opens the way for unrestricted independent corporate advertising during elections.

Skip to next paragraph

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is considering several proposals, including a call by some lawmakers to write an explicit restriction into the First Amendment limiting corporate political speech.

“I think we need a constitutional amendment to make clear that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals,” Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts told the panel.

He said the time for comprehensive campaign-finance reforms had arrived. “The government should stop tinkering around the edges of a system that is broken beyond repair,” Senator Kerry said.

Debate over corporate campaigning

The comments come amid a continuing national debate over the Supreme Court’s Jan. 21 decision that corporations have a constitutional right to spend their money on broadcast advertisements to make a political point during election season.

President Obama raised the issue during his State of the Union address last week, accusing the majority justices of reversing “a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito reacted to statement, shaking his head.

The president’s characterization of the ruling was inaccurate. It did not reverse “a century of law” and does not allow foreign corporations to spend unlimited amounts in US elections.

Foreign influence in elections?

It does, however, erode a century-long aspiration to limit the influence of corporations in American politics. And it could open the way for foreign influence in elections (which is still illegal) through broadcast ads placed by US-based subsidiaries of foreign corporations.

In general, Democrats have attacked the high court ruling and Republicans have praised it. Sen. Bob Bennett (R) of Utah said the Supreme Court decision simply allows other corporations to do what US media corporations like CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN have always been allowed to do.

E-mail Permissions

Photos of the day

02.08.12 »

Inside CSMonitor.com:

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change. See how individuals are making a difference...

Deng Fei began an influential blog that encourages readers to contribute to solutions. His latest cause: better nutrition for some 26 million rural schoolchildren. Readers have contributed $3.7 million.

Deng Fei goes beyond journalism to right wrongs in China

Once a top investigative reporter in China, Deng Fei now writes a popular microblog that moves readers to action.

Become a fan! Follow us! YouTube Link up with us! See our feeds!