Statement of Democracy 21 President on Legislation Introduced to Respond to Citizens United Decision
Democracy 21 strongly applauds Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE) for the important national leadership they have provided in proposing legislation to respond to the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.
The legislation provides Congress with the opportunity to mitigate the destructive impact of the Citizens United decision which has opened the door for corporations, labor unions and other organizations to flood federal elections and buy influence over government decisions with massive campaign expenditures.
A new poll shows the American people overwhelmingly oppose the Citizens United decision. According to the Quinnipiac Poll (April 21, 2010):
Voters disapprove 79 – 14 percent of the Supreme Court’s January ruling removing limits on the amount corporations and unions could spend attacking or boosting political candidates, with consistently strong opposition across the political spectrum.
The legislation introduced today is fair and equitable, and not partisan, in its impact. The bill applies alike to corporations, labor unions, trade associations and non-profit advocacy organizations.
It is also fair to donors.
Under the legislation, any donor to any organization can restrict the donated funds from being used for campaign-related expenditures and the donor will not be subject to any disclosure requirements.
Thus, whether a donor is disclosed or not is fully within the control of the donor.
Congress must act quickly to enact the legislation introduced today and make it effective in time for the 2010 congressional elections.
Comprehensive new disclosure requirements for campaign-related activities are at the core of the legislation introduced by Senator Schumer and Representatives Van Hollen and Castle.
The legislation is based on the fundamental principle set forth by the Supreme Court in the landmark Buckley case that the public has the right to know about expenditures being made to influence campaigns and about the sources that are providing the funds for such expenditures.
The Chamber of Congress has attacked the legislation introduced today, claiming it will "muzzle and or demonize independent voices from the election discussion."
As the Supreme Court said in the Citizens United case, however, disclosure and disclaimer requirements ""do not prevent anyone from speaking," and disclosure "permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way."
At the same time that the Supreme Court in Citizens United by a 5 to 4 vote held unconstitutional the ban on corporate and labor union campaign expenditures, the Court by an 8 to 1 vote made crystal clear that disclosure of such campaign activities is constitutional and appropriate.
The Court said:
The First Amendment protects political speech; and 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.
There has always been strong and broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for full and timely disclosure of campaign finance activities. Even congressional opponents of various other campaign finance reforms have argued that the only reform that made sense was timely disclosure of campaign finance activities.
For example, according to an article in The Hill (April 22, 2010):
Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has spent his political career fighting more restrictions, in 2000 called for broad new disclosure requirements in response to an effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to crack down on so-called "527" political groups.
The Hill article further stated:
"Republicans are in favor of disclosure," McConnell told Tim Russert on NBC’s "Meet the Press" at the time. In fact, he said, the more disclosure, the better.
"If you’re going to do that, and the Senate voted to do that, and I’m prepared to go down that road, then it needs to be meaningful disclosure, Tim," he said. "527s are just a handful of groups. We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so that you include the major political players in America. Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?"
If Senate Majority Leader McConnell is true to his words, he should have no problem supporting the important campaign finance disclosure requirements established by the legislation introduced today.
Various efforts are expected to obstruct, delay and undermine the legislation.
In particular, one effort congressional opponents of this legislation may pursue is a poison pill amendment to restore the corrupt soft money system banned in 2002.
Opponents may seek to do this by eliminating or increasing existing contributions limits for the national parties.
Democracy 21 and other reform groups will adamantly oppose any effort to restore the soft money system or to increase federal contribution limits for parties or for candidates.
Eliminating or increasing contribution limits would serve only to increase the ability of influence-seeking donors to buy government decisions. The new influence-buying and corruption problems caused by the Citizens United decision cannot be solved by opening the door to even greater influence-buying and corruption through larger contributions to parties and candidates.
The Citizens United decision and the public’s overwhelming rejection of it have created a classic confrontation for our democracy: the rights of the American people versus the interests of corporations. It is a battle that citizens must win to prevent the corruption of our democracy.
