Responding to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that loosened spending restrictions on corporations, associations and unions in federal elections, the House has passed a bill that strengthens disclosure provisions for campaign spending and restricts campaign money from government contractors and foreign-controlled companies.
The bill, which reflects the Democrats' response to the ruling earlier this year, now moves to the Senate. Titled the DISCLOSE Act, or Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, It's designed to reveal when corporations and unions spend money to influence federal elections, even if the money is funneled through third parties, such as trade associations or nonprofit groups.
It passed 219-206, largely along party lines. In general, Democrats say the bill is designed to increase transparency in the campaign-finance arena. Republicans complain the bill is subterfuge for protecting Democratic incumbents in the coming November elections. They claim Democrats are fearful that the court ruling will inspire a flood of hostile corporate money against their party. They also believe the measure unfairly targets corporate spending while giving lenient treatment to union activities.
The Supreme Court case involved the group Citizens United, which produced a 90-minute documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton titled "Hillary: The Movie." After the group was barred from airing the film on pay-per-view television during the 2008 presidential primary, it brought suit challenging key components of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that: corporations may use money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The high court also struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited unions and corporations from running issue ads in the closing days before primary and general elections.
The Democrats' bill - endorsed by President Obama - emphasizes disclosure of corporate and union campaign spending and restricts such spending by certain types of companies. The restrictions would apply to companies controlled by a foreign entity or those receiving government contracts or funding.
Other provisions would clamp down on campaign spending that is coordinated with a candidate or party, and the Senate version would require lower charges for broadcast ads purchased by a candidate who is attacked in independently sponsored political ads.
