Democrats Unveil Plan to Boost Campaign-Finance Laws

[kpete]

Source: Wall Street Journal

* FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 1:17 P.M. ET

Democrats Unveil Plan to Boost Campaign-Finance Laws

By PATRICK YOEST

WASHINGTON—Congressional Democrats unveiled a plan Thursday to put in place new restrictions on spending for political campaigns, an effort to combat the effects of a Supreme Court ruling that made it easier for corporations and other groups to fund campaign advertisements.

The plan was presented by Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) as a "framework" for future legislation. Groups that would be banned from making campaign expenditures include foreign entities, federal contractors and recipients of funds from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The plan also would require chief executives from corporations that fund political ads to disclose that they paid for the ads.

Messrs. Schumer and Van Hollen's plan is in response to a Supreme Court ruling in January that is expected to have far-reaching effects on political campaigns this year. The court struck down a part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law that prevented independent political groups, including corporations and labor unions, from running advertisements within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059441663715072.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

[FBaggins]

1. Smart

That's a good idea (and far better than whining about it). But it needs some refining.

Groups that would be banned from making campaign expenditures include foreign entities, federal contractors and recipients of funds from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The first is a bare minimum. The second is likely unconstitutional, but it's worth a show... the third would be the wrong thing to do unless they do a better job of identifying who they're talking about (else it's likely to also be unconstitutional).

They should also include companies like GM that are currently government-owned.

The plan also would require chief executives from corporations that fund political ads to disclose that they paid for the ads.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Isn't it simple enough to say that the ad has to include who paid for it (as most political ads do already)?

[Zorra]

2. Weak. Obama needs to issue an executive order nullifying the SCROTUS decison.

And he can do it legitimately, because the SCROTUS decison opens the door to a grave threat to our national security.

What the good Senators are proposing is like putting a band-aid on a gangrenous leg amputation.

[bossy22]

3. i dont know

i don't think he can nullify a supreme court decision with a simple executive order (seperation of powers- remember). Nor would i consider this a "grave threat to national security". The ruling wasnt good, but it isnt the end of the world. We should work within the confines of the law and not resort to Bush & Co. tactics when it came to laws they didn't agree with.

[Arkana]

5. Don't think this is a good idea,

mostly because it would be viewed as a massive, unnecessary overreach of executive power.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but let Congress do it.

[insidejoke]

4. I've Asked This Again and Again...

How do you prevent any of these interests from creating a wholly owned but otherwise domestic corporation which would be exempt from this law? Considering that corporations are the creation of state laws, the answer is that you can't and you don't. So banning these interests from spending their own money directly only creates a loophole the size of the entire fifty states.

And do you really expect that the Supreme Court would allow the federal government to force corporations receiving TARP money to "opt out" of the First Amendment which (five members of the Court claim) is now a guaranteed right? If such a plan was valid then I'd suggest taxing all corporations under the standard (pre-expenditure, pre-distribution) levels for personal income that the rest of us pay...unless they chose to "opt out" of political speech and back into their old (extremely advantageous) income tax levels, of course.

[Javaman]

6. Nice flowery words and all, but I will believe it when and if it actually becomes reality. nt

[groundloop]

7. This sounds good, HOWEVER.....

I'm afraid that this will be ruled an infringement on corporations right to free speach. Now that corporations are US citizens and all, we can't have congress passing laws that inconvenience them, now can we? I truly hope and pray that congress can come up with something to reign in this horrible decision, but am doubtful that it will happen.

As for the post suggesting that the President can overturn a Supreme Court decision, sorry but not even close to reality. (Bush would have done away with Roe v. Wade and countless others had this been even a remote possibility.)

[TomCADem]

8. At minimum, they will need to tighten up disclosure laws, or else...

People can also just form corporations to funnel money to candidates. The Supreme Court decision is a huge step backwards in the battle for openess in our Democracy.