Gavel Grab

Senate Republicans drew condemnation in two newspaper editorials for blocking a bill to require disclosure by corporations and labor unions of their political spending (see Gavel Grab).

“Senate Republicans made sure this fall’s elections will be drenched in corporate money,” said a San Francisco Chronicle editorial. “Get ready for a high-spending mud fight this fall as business groups exploit the [Supreme Court's Citizens United] ruling and take advantage of low polling numbers for Democrats.”

A New York Times editorial was headlined, “Keeping Politics in the Shadows.” Foes of the measure, the editorial said, “want the right to poison the political atmosphere without being held accountable for their speech.”

The editorial added that supporters of the measure, called The DISCLOSE Act, didn’t help their cause by adding several unnecessary provisions that attracted Republican opposition. Read more

Target Corp.’s donations totaling $150,000 to a group supporting the GOP candidate for governor in Minnesota have sparked controversy.

Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel told employees that Target is “unwavering” in support of the gay community, according to an Associated Press article, which noted concerns raised by gay Target employees. The GOP candidate, Tom Emmer, is a staunch conservative and opposes gay marriage. The group supporting him, MN Forward, is running ads backing Zemmer.

“We rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda,” Steinhafel said.

Under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates with independent advertising. The impact of that decision is not clear.

“This is the leading edge,”  Ed Bender, who heads the National Institute on Money in State Politics, told AP.

Senate Republicans have blocked efforts by Democrats to advance  a bill with more stringent requirements for special interest groups, unions and corporations to disclose their political spending.

Democrats were unable to muster the 60 votes needed Tuesday to get past a filibuster by Republicans against The DISCLOSE Act, as the bill is called, and it could mean the bill is dead for this year, according to a Reuters article. The procedural vote was 57-41.

“The DISCLOSE Act seeks to protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said.

President Obama, in Rose Garden remarks on Monday, had called for passage of the bill. A vote against it, he said, “is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections,” the San Francisco Examiner reported. Read more

A bill to require disclosure of corporate and labor union spending to influence elections has stalled in the U.S. Senate, but one-fifth of the states have passed legislation to require further disclosure of political spending.

This update comes from an article in USA Today, reporting that states have passed measures quickly in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in January.

States adopting new rules are Iowa, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, South Dakota and West Virginia. In Washington state, existing laws governing disclosure were broadened.

“In most of the states, it’s ‘Hey, what’s the big deal? Let’s provide information,’ ” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a partner of Justice at Stake. Read more

New reports are surfacing across the country of businesses and special interests working to exert more political influence in elections, following the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision. Judicial elections are among the targets.

“An organization is being formed to coordinate spending by businesses interested in electing sympathetic judges. It plans to gear up next year,” reported an article in the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle. The article was headlined, “Businesses look for more state election influence.”

While Georgia corporations in the past were permitted to pump unlimited dollars into independent expenditures, “signs point to increased corporate involvement,” the article said.

In Minnesota, an umbrella group funded by state businesses has begun airing a TV ad supporting Tom Emmer, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, according to a Minnesota Public Radio report. It referred specifically to the impact of Citizens United:

“Because of a U.S Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, those businesses and other companies are now allowed to spend corporate money to influence elections. That court ruling, along with an open governor’s race, means political spending will dramatically increase from the last governor’s race.” Read more

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has filed  litigation challenging Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land’s recent interpretation of state campaign finance law in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

The Chamber has gone to court challenging part of Land’s ruling in May. She effectively said,  according to a Grand Rapids Press article,  “the state chamber can use its own funds to back political candidates, but cannot set up a political committee to accept outside funding and use the money to support or oppose a candidate.”

A copy of the litigation, filed in U.S. District Court, is available here. You can learn more about Land’s earlier declaratory ruling from Gavel Grab.

Citizens United lifted restrictions on corporate political spending for independent advertising to support or oppose candidates in elections.

In the upcoming midterm elections, advocacy groups on both sides of the political fence “are expected to pour tens of millions of dollars into loosely regulated independent election expenditures,” according to a CQPolitics.com article.

One of the expected top spenders will be the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A Chamber vice president, Bruce Josten, said his group hopes to pull in as much as $75 million to spend on election operations in such states as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois.

While Democrats predict the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision will open the floodgates for spending by businesses and their coalitions, Josten said campaign spending disclosure legislation in Congress doesn’t make corporations happy.

“That does not compel companies to write checks,” Josten said. “It is clearly a factor in the decision-making of corporations if in fact it does become law.”

The legislation has been passed by the House. In the Senate, it could face a Republican filibuster, according to a New York Times editorial.

You can read about the disclosure legislation in Congress, and similar bills in state legislatures, from Gavel Grab.

Exemptions carved out for some groups in a campaign-spending disclosure bill recently passed by the House of Representatives are unfair and must be fixed, a major national newspaper says.

A USA Today editorial protests that the DISCLOSE Act was changed so drastically that it turned into the “Disclose-by-some Act:”

“First, sponsors exempted the NRA along with a few other huge groups, such as the AARP. After some liberal groups whined, the bill was rewritten again to exempt the Sierra Club, an environmental powerhouse, before it passed the House.

“What a travesty. Not only are some advocacy groups treated differently from others, the exemptions might make the measure, if it becomes law, more vulnerable to expected legal challenges.”

The editorial calls on senators to close the “loopholes” and “put a spotlight on all spending for campaign ads.” The bill was drafted in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, removing key constraints on political spending by corporations and labor unions.

In a commentary published by the newspaper, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. and an author of the legislation, defended it and said “limited adjustments” were made to get it passed:

“To pass the bill, limited adjustments were made for large, citizen-based organizations, such as AARP, the NRA and the Sierra Club. Whether you love or hate them, such groups are known to voters and are not trying to conceal their identities. Even so, the bill subjects them to more disclosure than is now required. Their CEOs will have to “stand by their ads,” and they cannot use corporate contributions for political expenditures.”

To learn more about the controversial legislation, check out Gavel Grab.

The Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision continues to draw a concerned response from state legislators around the country.

In the New York state legislature, a measure was introduced to require shareholder approval before corporations can spend cash for political campaigns or issue advocacy, the Wall Street Journal reported.

A similar bill was introduced recently in Massachusetts. It was backed by supporters of campaign finance reform such as Common Cause.

Such bills often draw opposition in the business community. “It’s unconstitutional on its face,” Heather Briccetti, vice president for the Business Council of New York State, said about the legislation. “It would pretty much bar any larger publicly traded entity from participating in the political process in this cycle.”

Citizens United lifted key restraints on corporate and labor union political spending. It recently was labeled the defining case of the court’s 2009-2010 term by a leading national newspaper (check out details in Gavel Grab).

Almost a year ago, former Solicitor General Ken Starr predicted that Citizens United “has a just claim to be the most important case” of the Supreme Court’s 2009-2010 term (see Gavel Grab), which had not yet begun.

In July 2010, judge for yourself. Here is what USA Today wrote this week about the landmark decision, in which the high court struck down limits on corporate and union spending on political elections:

“After nine months and 73 decisions, the Supreme Court’s newly concluded 2009-10 term is defined by a single case whose continuing political ramifications were on display this week in Senate hearings for Elena Kagan.

“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission…was invoked repeatedly — by Democrats and Republicans— during the questioning of high court nominee Kagan. Reverberations are likely into the fall elections and the next term.

“‘At some level, this is the Democrats’ abortion issue,’ Harvard University law professor Mark Tushnet says of the political power of the case, in which a five-justice conservative majority reinterpreted political free-speech law. Conservative Republicans have long described the 1973 Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal nationwide, as a liberal ‘activist’ ruling.”

When the high court issued Citizens United, Justice at Stake said the decision posed grave dangers to America’s elected state courts. You can read the JAS statement by clicking here, or click here to see the JAS amicus brief in the case.