• Washington Post here.
• The Hill here.
• New York Times here.
• Washington Times here.

If the DISCLOSE Act is not enacted, voters will not know the identity of the corporate donors that are funding the Chamber of Commerce’s reported $50 million campaign to influence the 2010 congressional elections, and the amounts those corporate donors are giving.

 

Voters also will not know the names of and amounts given by the wealthy individuals that are funding c4 groups such as American Action Network, recently formed by political operatives to spend a reported $25 million to influence the 2010 congressional elections.

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 5175. The Administration believes the DISCLOSE Act is a necessary measure so that Americans will know who is trying to influence the Nation's elections. H.R. 5175 also prevents those who should not interfere in the Nation's elections - like corporations controlled by foreign interests - from doing so. Unless strong new disclosure rules are established, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case will give corporations even greater power to influence elections. This bill is not perfect. The Administration would have preferred no exemptions. But by providing for unprecedented transparency, this bill takes great strides to hold corporations who participate in the Nation's elections accountable to the American people. As this is a matter of urgent importance, the Administration urges prompt passage of the DISCLOSE Act.

"Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.

The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old 'Clean Elections' law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.

Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.

In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads."

• The Center for Competitive Politics notes how the reformers have changed their tune in this post: I thought the NRA was the reason we needed campaign finance ‘reform’?
• The Campaign Legal Center's lastest effort to prop up the DISCLOSE Act begins, "Despite the histrionics of the special interests in Washington, the core of the DISCLOSE Act is about disclosing the individuals or entities spending huge amounts of money to impact elections. It is not about suppressing free speech."  We're not sure which part of this paragraph is more unbelievable -- that CLC actually seems to think that it is not one of  "the special interests in Washington" or that the DISCLOSE Act "is not about suppressing free speech." 

"The deal that House Democratic leaders cut with the National Rifle Association to earn the gun lobby’s neutrality on a campaign finance bill came in for harsh criticism from across the political spectrum on Tuesday, presenting new challenges for the package even as leadership pushes for floor action this week. 

 

***

 

The NRA — a fearsome grass-roots force with a solid House majority eager to maintain its support — was in a position to single-handedly sink the package. Hence Democratic leaders and government reform groups eager to see the broader bill enacted into law hatched a carve-out that exempts groups that are at least 10 years old, claim more than 1 million members, have operations in all 50 states and take no more than 15 percent of their money from corporate or union sources. The NRA pledged Tuesday to remain neutral on the bill as long as the exemption remained."

NRA statement (via CCP): Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said, "This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us... This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us..."

"Last Thursday afternoon, hours before the House Rules Committee was set to take up a measure aimed at mitigating the fallout from Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of campaign cash — the meeting was scrapped.  Democratic aides depicted the delay as a consequence of a packed legislative calendar, predicting that the money-in-politics bill would come to the House floor after the recess. But some government watchdogs backing the majority’s effort saw a more dire sign in the Rules Committee postponement: that behind-the-scenes lobbying by some of Washington’s biggest campaign spenders, on both the left and the right, had spooked enough Democrats to make the legislation impossible to pass in its current form."

• National Right To Life Committee press release: "The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, today urged the U.S. House of Representatives to reject the "DISCLOSE Act" (H.R. 5175), which it called a "bullying political power grab," which is "not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption -- a corruption of the lawmaking process, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves."  NRLC said that it would include the dispositive roll calls on the measure in its scorecard of key votes for the current Congress." 

A union spokesman said lawmakers and labor lobbyists are still discussing details of the legislation, but labor officials feel that the bill should take a tougher line against corporations because of their "disproportionate influence."

 

“We do agree that the final bill should treat corporations different than democratic organizations such as unions,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO. “We hold the position that, among other things, the legislation should counter the excessive and disproportionate influence by big business and guarantee effective disclosure of who is paying for what.”

• The Committee adopted the "manager's amendment" mentioned here yesterday.
• The Committee adopted an amendment raising the government contractor threshold.  Reports vary as to what the revised amount is - one account reported $7 million, while another reported $1 million.  (The original version of the bill prohibited corporations with government contracts worth $50,000 or more from engaging in election spending.)  Republican amendments to extend these restrictions to government employee unions were defeated.
• The Committee adopted an amendment requiring additional disclosure in robo-calls. 

"Democratic top brass agree on the urgent need for a legal bulwark against what could be an unchecked flood of spending by outside groups this election season after a divided high court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, striking down many restrictions on televised political advertising.

But while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and most of her lieutenants want to pass the measure before the Memorial Day recess, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is urging caution. The Maryland Democrat’s camp is on edge that without some targeted fixes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association, in particular, will oppose the measure and exact political revenge on moderate Democrats who supported it.

What’s more, Hoyer has argued privately that there is no clear path forward for the bill in the Senate, raising the specter of forcing vulnerable Members to take a tough vote only to see the measure stall in the other chamber. That view gained credence in a Tuesday huddle of House and Senate Democratic leaders when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said he doesn’t believe the bill has the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster."

"As former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission with almost 75 years of combined experience, we believe that the bill proposed on April 30 by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to 'blunt' the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is unnecessary, partially duplicative of existing law, and severely burdensome to the right to engage in political speech and advocacy.

Moreover, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, or Disclose Act, abandons the longstanding policy of treating unions and businesses equally, suggesting partisan motives that undermine respect for campaign finance laws."

 

"If the legislation, called the Disclose Act, lived up to its name, it might be uncontroversial....

 

The problem is that the bill in Congress goes beyond disclosure, and even its authors say that it could, in practice, limit the involvement of corporations and unions in elections. 'The deterrent effect should not be underestimated,' Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in unveiling the bill. 

 

The bill would also create a number of expensive barriers for corporations, unions and other outside groups....

 

The bill would require groups putting ads on the air to include a database of spending on their Web sites, an expense that could deter smaller groups. The same information is reported to the government and is available to the public....

 

The bill would become effective 30 days after enactment, and sponsors hope it would change rules for the midterm elections in November. That would allow little time for the FEC to write regulations....

 

The effect will be great uncertainty about the law ahead of the election, however, and corporations that are often risk-averse when it comes to politics will probably stay on the sidelines -- which detractors say is precisely the point."

"Passing a new campaign-finance law before November's elections is a top priority for the White House and Democrats, but they are running into objections from some of their own supporters.

The proposed legislation, meant to address a recent Supreme Court decision that eased the rules on political television advertisements, would require groups that run campaign attack ads to disclose the names of the businesses, labor unions and other groups that fund the efforts.

Democrats say the disclosure provision has a particular target: It aims to discourage companies from funding election efforts by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. . . .

 

But advocacy groups on the left, such as the Sierra Club environmentalist group and the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of liberal organizations, are lobbying to weaken the central element of the proposed bill. They worry that it could hurt their ability to raise money.

 

The liberal groups, along with conservative and business organizations, are concerned that wealthy individuals and entities wouldn't donate to their organizations if their names had to be disclosed."

"According to the summary, obtained by The Washington Post, the legislation would require corporate chief executives or group leaders to publicly attach their names to ads, much like political candidates are required to do. It would also mandate disclosure of major donors whose money is used for 'campaign-related activity.'

The latter measure would require powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the first time to identify the companies that fund its political-related spending.

The measure would also tighten political restrictions on foreign-based corporations, which would be defined as any company that has 20 percent foreign voting shares, a majority of foreign directors or a foreign national leading U.S. operations. If enacted into law, that provision could affect a significant number of familiar companies, including Budweiser, T-Mobile and Research in Motion.

Other provisions would mandate public disclosure of political spending and would bar companies that receive federal contracts worth more than $50,000 from spending money to influence federal elections, the summary says."

 

From the introduction: "This report provides an analysis of the constitutional and legal issues raised by several proposals, organized by regulatory topic: increasing disclaimer requirements, increasing disclosure for tax-exempt organizations, requiring shareholder notification and approval, restricting U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, restricting political expenditures by government contractors and grantees, taxing corporate independent expenditures, and providing public financing for congressional campaigns. The report also addresses amending the Constitution."

"Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort campaign spending from businesses....That's why both parties should join to pass a bill that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) hope to introduce this week placing some rules around the new electoral casino that the Roberts court has opened. The proposal is expected to win Republican co-sponsorship. And it should."

It didn't take long for Congress to try an end-run around the Supreme Court's landmark January decision in Citizens United v. FEC. With a campaign finance bill due to be introduced this week, Democrats are proposing to repeal the First Amendment, at least for some people....We've long supported disclosure for campaign contributions, so voters can judge for themselves if certain donations are corrupting. But Mr. Schumer's version of disclosure is designed to discourage speech with complex regulation, including a new and separate disclosure regime with the Securities and Exchange Commission....As a practical matter, all of this continues the game of whack-a-mole that the campaign-finance restrictionists have pursued for decades to little avail. They haven't stopped the flow of money into campaigns or produced cleaner government, but they have made fund-raising far more complex and legally difficult for donors and candidates. These new efforts are destined for a similar fate if they ever make it into law—and we hope Republicans filibuster them.

From the Congressional Research Service: Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress.