jimpeel
Well-Known Member
They know most businesses are conservative leaning and know most of the money will go to the Republicans and conservative candidates.
SOURCE
SOURCE
* JANUARY 24, 2010, 7:45 P.M. ET
Democrats Seek to Counter Court Ruling on Political Spending
By JESS BRAVIN And BRODY MULLINS
WASHINGTON—Democrats are exploring ways to counter a Supreme Court ruling that threw out a century of limits on corporate political spending, hoping it will hand them a populist issue to stem a Republican tide rising on public anger.
President Barack Obama devoted his weekly address to the decision, calling it a victory for "special interests and their lobbyists." He cited "one of the great Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt," who "warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending" on elections.
Possible legislation includes requiring corporations to obtain shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and blocking companies from deducting election spending as a business expense on their taxes.
Another proposal, borrowed from existing rules for political candidates, is requiring "the CEO of the corporation to make a declaration at the end of an ad saying, 'I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who heads the House Democrats' campaign committee.
On Thursday, justices split 5-4 along their ideological divide to grant corporations and unions the right to make unlimited expenditures promoting or attacking candidates.
Democrats had anticipated the Supreme Court's decision for months, and quickly rolled out both political rhetoric and legislative proposals.
Friday, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen met to discuss options with aides to Mr. Van Hollen and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), as well as Justice Department staff and Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist on campaign-finance issues, officials said.
Mr. Van Hollen said Democrats also are weighing an effort to bar companies that received federal bailouts and big government contractors from electioneering, similar to rules affecting federal employees.
Most Republicans hailed the court's decision as victory for free speech. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said it would help individuals acting "collectively through a corporation."
Democrats hope to paint the Republican position as favoring "even more big money and corporate special interests influencing the outcome of elections," Mr. Van Hollen said. "That should be a wake-up call to many in the Tea Party movement," who, as in last week's Senate election in Massachusetts, have flocked to Republican candidates, he said.
Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the Senate Republican campaign arm, said Democrats are putting their partisan interests ahead of the "constitutional right to free speech and fair elections."
The Democrats' effort recalls the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by Mr. Obama when he took office a year ago. The union-backed law negated a 2007 Supreme Court decision that the president castigated during his campaign for making it harder for women to file discrimination claims.
Previously, Republicans sometimes have backed campaign-finance regulations. This year likely will be different. Even Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who co-authored the bipartisan 2002 McCain-Feingold act cracking down on corporate electioneering, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" that little could be done. "The Supreme Court has spoken," he said, predicting "an inundation of special-interest money into political campaigns."
In recent elections, most political ads sponsored by independent groups have favored Democrats. Labor unions and wealthy Democrats have sent millions of dollars to these groups, which tailored their advertisements to comply with now-void restrictions. Both unions and Republican-leaning groups such as chambers of commerce can now spend freely to promote or disparage candidates.
Some analysts expect a flood of corporate and union money to fuel an increase in political commercials, particularly negative attack ads. Others are skeptical.
"With both parties vying for the populist flag, who the hell is going to want ads with corporate disclaimers from large companies, banks and the insurance industry?" said Bruce Cain, director of the University of California Washington Center.
But the ruling does "give Obama another 'populist' cause, which he needs," Mr. Cain said.
Both Senate and House committees plan hearings next month on the decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Reps. Leonard Boswell (D., Iowa) and Donna Edwards (D., Md.) proposed constitutional amendments to nullify the Supreme Court ruling. Their odds are slim, as amending the Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures.
Separately, legislation creating a public-funding system for congressional campaigns gained momentum with additional backers. More than 120 House members—although only a few Republicans—have endorsed it.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), a longtime opponent of restrictions on campaign spending, says the legislation has no chance.
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] and Brody Mullins at [email protected]