McCaskill Signs On to Bill to Require Corporations to Disclose Campaign Donations

In response to January’s unprecedented Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that struck down longstanding limitations on campaign contributions from special interests, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill yesterday signed on to co-sponsor legislation that would force corporations to be transparent about their now unfettered political donations and further ban political contributions from foreign corporations and government contractors. The Citizens United decision overturned the law banning independent political ads sponsored by private corporations and unions.

“If special interests are pouring money into political campaigns we need to at least make sure we know where the money is coming from and who is behind the curtain,” McCaskill said.

The legislation, introduced by Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), would require corporations, unions and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and be held accountable for any ads they sponsor. It would also ban contributions from foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance.

Specifically, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (or DISCLOSE) Act would bring more accountability and transparency to corporate campaign contributions by:

· Banning contributions from foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance.

· Requiring the head of any organization sponsoring an ad to appear during the ad – similar to the way that political candidates for federal office must appear in their campaign ads. For special interest ads that are funded by multiple organizations, the top five donors would have to be identified as sponsors during the advertisement.

· Requiring corporations and advocacy groups to track political contributions through transparent accounts and to report any donations over $1000 and expenditures from these accounts to the Federal Election Commission and to the public within 24 hours. If an organization chooses not to set up these accounts, all of their donors, even those who aren’t political, would have to be made public.

· Guaranteeing that candidates can purchase air time at the lowest possible rate in the same media markets where attack ads are aired, strengthening a candidate’s ability to respond to corporate interests’ attacks.

· Prohibiting corporations from coordinating political activities with candidates. A similar ban already exists for public entities and unions.

For a more complete summary of the bill click here.

House Happenings for May 7th, 2008

As the General Assembly nears the end of regular session, the pace increases on consideration of bills. Most of the bills which are currently being heard in the House of Representatives originated in the Senate and are now ready for "Third Reading", and final passage by the House before going to the Governor. Some of these are bad bills (they really are); perhaps even most of them may be bad, from different perspectives. I vote in opposition to those bills when I can determine that serious problems will result from the new proposals. Sometimes I vote no, based on suspicions and years of experience seeing "unintended consequences" develop from hastily-handled legislation. I would probably exercise the "No vote", in even more cases, except I believe that one must limit opposition to appropriate battles. It could be difficult to maintain credibility among other members and have their necessary support regarding our issues if I oppose too many bills.
An example of one bill that appears to justify opposition is HCS SCS SB 1038, which would repeal limits of political campaign contributions. I realize that sometimes Missouri voters have made choices which might need future changes; however, changes, if necessary, perhaps belong in the hands of all voters, rather than the General Assembly. Missouri voters passed "Proposition A", in 1994, which set limits and individual donations to political candidates. That action, along with similar action establishing term limits for legislators, enabled "incumbents" and "non-incumbents" to have relatively even chances of being elected to Missouri’s General Assembly. Eventually, the balance of power shifted from one political party, which had enjoyed a majority for a long time, to the other, and now, guess what? The new rules aren’t satisfactory with the new majority. The current majority is very determined to remove donation limits because they are now in a more favorable position to benefit from unlimited donations. Removing limits protects the "incumbency" and now, to a lesser degree, we are also hearing rumors of adjusting, extending or even removing "term limits". Isn’t it funny how time slips away and history is destined to repeat itself.
Back to the campaign limits. The General Assembly passed HB 1900 in 2006 and for several months, donations were sometimes "huge". Several exceeded $100,000 and three to five thousand dollar donations were routine (at least for some members, excluding yours truly). The Missouri Supreme Court ruled HB 1900 unconstitutional on procedural grounds so HCS SCS SB 1038 is here for another round. Incidentally, it’s here in time to influence the general election of 2008, if enacted. Our government is not supposed to be "for sale" and it’s our own fault when we allow that to happen. Unfortunately, more and more voters are unduly influenced with overwhelming advertisements rather than obtaining factual information on which to base their decisions. I think the amount of money that is involved in our political process is a sin, and ought to be a crime. As far as I know, I’ll be voting "no" again when HCS SCS SB 1038 lights up "The Board".
Please share your thoughts during these last two weeks of session on legislative issues that are of importance to you. You can contact me at jim.whorton@house.mo.gov or 573-751-1649.