Legislation to Respond to the Citizens United Decision: Myths & Realities Part 1
Legislation was introduced today to respond to the Citizens United decision by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and by Representatives Chris Van Hollen and Mike Castle (R-DE).
This is Democracy 21’s first “myths and realities” release to deal with incorrect and inaccurate claims made about the legislation. We will continue to issue these releases as circumstances require.
Myth: Requiring corporations and unions to disclose their campaign-related expenditures is unconstitutional because it will "chill" the exercise of First Amendment speech rights.
Reality: The Supreme Court has already rejected this argument by an 8 to 1 vote in the Citizens United case. The Court held that requiring the disclosure of campaign-related expenditures serves a governmental interest in "provid[ing] the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending." Disclosure requirements, the Court said, "impose no ceiling on campaign related activities," and "do not prevent anyone from speaking."
In upholding the constitutionality of disclosure of campaign-related expenditures, the Court concluded that "disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."
Myth: Only political communications by outside spenders that contain "express advocacy" can be made subject to disclosure requirements.
Reality: The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this argument in the Citizens United case. The case was, in part, about the very issue of whether disclosure requirements could apply to ads by Citizens United which did not contain express advocacy. The Court held that disclosure requirements could constitutionally apply to such non-express advocacy speech. The Court said: "[W]e reject Citizens United’s contention that the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy."
