A wealth of legislation has been introduced already to carve back some of the more potentially deleterious aspects of the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision -- and that list doesn't even include Sen. Sherrod Brown's recently introduced bill covering much of this turf.
But lots of people can introduce bills; it's a question of who can get them moving through the committees and passed as legislation. And on that front, when Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen speak, we listen:
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.
The plan has six key components:
- Foreign influence would be deterred by banning corporations which have 20% foreign ownership, a foreign-majority board of directors or U.S. operations (or political decisionmaking) under the direction or control of a foreign entity, including a foreign government, would be barred from doing the independent expenditure ads permitted under Citizens United.
- Pay-to-Play restrictions by extending the existing ban on government contractors' political contributions to these independent expenditures, and barring TARP recipients from using taxpayer money for political expenditures.
- Stand By Your Ad requirements would be extended to require a corporation's CEO to appear on camera to say that he or she "approves this message," just like candidates do now, and for shadow groups/coalitions, the top funder does the disclaimer and the top five contributors have to be listed in the ad.
- More disclosure to make clear who's funding these activities, both in filings with the FEC and to corporate shareholders (both within 24h of each such expenditure and compiled quarterly). Also, registered lobbyists would have enhanced disclosure requirements.
- Ensuring media access by requiring broadcasters to extend the lowest unit rate to candidates and parties whenever corporations place independent expenditure ads on them, and requiring broadcasters to ensure candidates reasonable access to airtime (so that corporations can't dominate the market).
- Extending coordination restrictions to ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate within 90 days of the primary through the general election, and even before that window for ads which explicitly promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate.
There's much to say about this proposal, but the main thing which occurs to me is how relative modest it is. Not modest in the sense of "it won't have an impact" -- because this could significantly curtail or disincentivize independent expenditure activity, or at least shed more light upon it -- but modest in the sense that all it does is take existing, constitutionally valid restrictions and sensibly extend them into new turf. Let's hope there's real momentum behind this and the President is presented with a bill to sign well before the 2010 general election cycle begins in earnest.
update: Fix Congress First's Lawrence Lessig is disappointed by the proposal, calling it "filled with ideas that either won't work or that, if they worked, would only invite the Supreme Court to strike again."