Democrats Push to Require Corporate Campaign Disclosure

[kpete]

Source: New York Times

Democrats Push to Require Corporate Campaign Disclosure
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: April 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — The White House and leading Democrats in Congress are close to proposing legislation that would force private companies and groups to disclose their behind-the-scenes financial involvement in political campaigns and advertising, officials involved in the discussions said Monday.

One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship, the officials said.

The legislation is being developed in response to a major Supreme Court decision in January that found that the government could not ban corporations from spending in political campaigns.

The decision, a break from precedent, drew strong personal protest from President Obama. White House and Congressional leaders have been working for the last three months to find a way to stem what they predict will be a flood of corporate money flowing into November’s midterm elections.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13donate.html?ref=politics

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, please awaken me if/when anything substantial is accomplished? eom

[polichick]

2. Good start - wish they hadn't abandoned the idea of requiring shareholders...

...to approve of ads.

[HillbillyBob]

3. I agree up to a point

We need public campaign funding and something like the Fairness doctrine equal time for candidates no shunting off 3 or 4 or 5 party candidates. and make the f--king corpses pay a fair amount of taxes without loopholes. Im referring to GE, Exxon et al. and not more tax payers $ subsidies to them.

[Mr. Sparkle]

4. I liked a previous idea even better, where the shareholders of a company had to approve of any

political lobbying and advertising. While it wouldn't make much of a difference to news corp. it would make a difference to a lot of other companies.

[HopeHoops]

5. I still like the idea of negating the ability to contribute if even one shareholder is foreign.

That would knock Murdoch right off the field and could give some force to the rather easily substantiated claim that FOX Noise is one big GOP commercial.

[groundloop]

6. Hate to say this, but it doesn't matter which idea any of us likes

It's all about writing legislation that will stand up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court, while at the same time being at least somewhat effective. This current proposal makes sense, it's not denying any corporate entity (now that they have been granted personhood) the right to political speech, just telling them they have to take a wee bit of responsibility for what they say. This, I think, will at least stand up to the court.

[No Elephants]

9. Maybe, but see NAACP v. Button, one of the cases the SCOTUS cited in the Citizens opinion.

[Plucketeer]

7. The SOONER the BETTER!

Get with it guys!

[Donnachaidh]

8. hey - here's a thought -- instead of dithering the f*ck around with this nonsense

How about coming up with legislation to strip *personhood* from corporations so the corrupt SCOTUS cannot rule to allow corruption to totally take over the political process?

Oh wait -- here come the *we need to do it in baby steps* crowd flying in to cover the FACT that nothing really substantial is being done to REIN IN corporate ownership of our government! :sarcasm:

:banghead: :grr:

[No Elephants]

10. Too late. The SCOTUS has already held that the First Amendment applies to corporations.

That is a Constitutional decision by the SCOTUS. Legislation cannot override a Constitutional decision by the SCOTUS.

Congress could theoretically deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving the First Amendment rights of corporations, but state courts would still be bound by the Citizens United case.

Consttitutional amendment seems like the only workaround. However, no controversial Constitutional Amendment has been adopted in over 50 years--and I shudder to think of opening up the Constitution to amendment these days.

[bemildred]

12. You know I really don't get this.

Corporations are chartered under state law, that's why they all have headquarters in Delaware, so I would think the states would have the power to do anything they like with corporations. And the whole point of corporations is that they do not have the same legal rights and obligations as mammalian citizens, the "limited liability" stuff.

[toopers]

11. They also need to keep any organization that receives . . .

government funding from donating to a campaign.