Two Democratic-led campaign finance reform bills – designed to blunt the impact of January's landmark Supreme Court decision allowing corporate contributions – were supposed to be introduced yesterday, but will be delayed until next week, as some Republicans have expressed reservations about the measures.
Two Democratic-led campaign finance reform bills designed to blunt the impact of January's landmark Supreme Court decision allowing corporate contributions was supposed to be introduced yesterday but will be delayed until next week, as some Republicans have expressed reservations about the measure.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have been working together on virtually identical bills that would, among other things, require CEOs to appear on camera to "approve" ads and ban contributions from foreign corporations and companies that make large sums of money from government contracts.
Despite the outcry that the case – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – has generated among politicians and policy groups, however, very few corporations have yet to step up and use their new-found campaigning powers.
A story earlier this week in BusinessWeek suggests that the real beneficiaries of the ruling so far have been corporate attorneys, who have been fielding calls for months from their clients, who are curious about how they can take advantage of the new rules.
But to this point, few have actually done so. From the story:
Citizens United, however, may not live up to its initial billing as a political game-changer, predicts Nathaniel Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia Law School. It's the fourth in a series of decisions by the Roberts court that have narrowed or struck down campaign finance regulations. In 2007 the justices held that corporate and union ads enjoyed First Amendment protection as long as they didn't explicitly endorse or oppose candidates.
"So before Citizens United, a company or a union could pay for ads that said, 'Tell Senator Smith to stop ruining America,' " Persily explains. "After Citizens United, they can add the magic words: 'and by the way, don't vote for Senator Smith.' That's not much of a practical difference."
We talked to some other people who said as much last month and shared some thoughts back in January about who might come out on top.
Because state races in California already allow independent expenditures, the race that stands to be affected most by the ruling is the showdown for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat.
Now is usually the point where we'd break down corporate contributions to Boxer and her three GOP challengers from their most recent campaign filings, but because Senate filings are still not subject to electronic disclosure rules, we'll have to wait a few weeks for that. Stay tuned.
Comments
via Twitter