Big Money’s Alarming Political Edge

[groovedaddy]

Time is short for Congress to deal with the damage from the Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations and unions to spend without limit in attacking or boosting candidates for federal office.

To avoid an unbridled flood of cash in this year’s elections, Congress must impose full transparency on precisely where the money comes from — so corporations and unions can no longer hide behind euphemistic labels to finance candidate drives.

The table stakes for November are booming. The United States Chamber of Commerce has announced one of its “most aggressive” drives ever — a $50 million expenditure (40 percent bigger than 2008’s) expected to favor mainly Republicans in 50 crucial races. Unions preferring Democrats are working to keep pace.

A measure to be offered as early as this week would require trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups to clearly identify who is paying for ads designed to slant opinion for and against particular candidates. It also would restrict campaign spending by American corporations with partial foreign ownership. Another proposal would require that political expenditures be approved by corporate shareholders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11sun3.html?th&emc=th

[DJ13]

1. Congress has no intention of dealing with this before November

Theres too many Congress members who believe they'll be the ultimate beneficiaries of the corporate ads to get enough of them together to try and find a means of limiting the USSC decision this year.

Another way of saying that is that their are many Congress members have worked hard for the last two years sucking up to big business, and they expect a payoff to stay in office.