I'm the CEO of X Corp. and I approved this ad' ... as a counter to campaign finance ruling?

[jefferson_dem]

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.

<SNIP>

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.

<SNIP>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019561248784550.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

[Hello_Kitty]

1. They have to be stopped from setting up fake shell corporations or astroturf outfits

I could see Exxon fully funding some "Friends of the Earth" bullshit "non-profit" or a "green energy" company and funneling money to run advocacy or attack ads on candidates.

And they goddamn better not be able to deduct electioneering as a business expense! :grr:

[ShadowLiberal]

2. All good ideas, especially of stock holder approval

I could see even people of the party met to benefit from political ads not wanting the company to waste it's corporate assets on election ads. But the problem is what's to stop a company from setting up a new 1 employee company that they own and funneling money into that so that they can say "I'm Mr. Smith of 'Decoy Company Inc.' and I approve this message".

It's only a matter of time either way until this ruling creates some kind of corporate campaign cash scandal.

[jberryhill]

3. Won't work...

Obfuscatory corporate structures would simply make it a game for corporate lawyers.

It's back to the drawing board for McCain Feingold.

Actually, because it takes so long to litigate these things, a different variation on the same statute can be enacted every four years, and that's as good as anything that's been proposed here so far.

[boppers]

4. First three posters mention shell corporations...

...so I'll mention non-shell corporations, just to be different.

What's to prevent misleading ads by *actual* corporations, used as another form of branding and advertising?

"I support Senator Lieberman because he doesn't want dangerous drugs imported into this country from other nations. I'm Jeffrey Kindler, the CEO of Pfizer, and I approve of this message."