However, on Thursday Democrats in both the House and Senate introduced legislation to try and reign in the Court ruling somewhat:
Under the proposals spearheaded by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), companies and unions would have to identify themselves on ads that they pay for; disclose information about such expenditures to shareholders and the public; and stand by the message of any ads through statements from a CEO or other top official, much as political candidates currently are required to do. The proposals would also bar government contractors and foreign-owned corporations -- defined as 20 percent of shareholders or more -- from spending money on U.S. elections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
While they cannot overturn the decision of the Supreme Court, the legislation seeks to toughen the disclosure requirements so that the American people can at least know what special interest groups and Corporations are funding political campaign activity:
"Powerful special interests and their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American people," Obama said Thursday. "The legislation introduced today would establish the toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests so the American people can follow the money and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign activity and trying to buy representation in our government."
But of course, the usual suspects are there to oppose any kind of disclosure, mainly because they have been able to anonymously buy off elections for far too long now:
Opponents of the legislation, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the conservative Center for Competitive Politics, said Democrats were demonizing companies for exercising their First Amendment rights. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) directed particularly sharp criticism at Schumer and Van Hollen, noting their roles as key organizers behind Democratic fundraising and election efforts.
"Make no mistake about it, the campaign finance bill introduced this morning is not about reform, transparency, accountability or good government," McConnell said in a statement. "It is about election advantage, plain and simple. An effort to disregard the First Amendment and defy the Supreme Court in order to limit the speech of those who may disagree with you is an effort that has no place in this country."
As always though, the American people do not agree with McConnell:
Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.
ad_icon
The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
But of course as always McConnell will go to any ridiculous lengths to protect Corporate America. This law does nothing to limit the "free speech" of throwing money around, it only requires that the folks throwing the money let everyone know they are throwing it. Of course, the Chamber and McConnell cannot accept this, because if they are required to disclose where the money for their lies come from, the cover will be blown.
What we need in this country is public financing of elections. If McConnell is so worried about limiting the speech of those who disagree with you, why does he not support a level playing field for all sides?? Simply put, he wants the very rich and Corporate America to have more power in shaping elections than the average working American because quite simply with their distorted view of "democracy" that is the only way they can win.
Let us hope this law passes and moves us closer to the day when we have public financing for all elections.
Comments are closed on this story.