The House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill that is intended to lift the veil on who is paying for advertisements and other communications that could influence elections — including nonprofit advocacy groups.
The measure was passed in response to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.
The bill would require corporations that issue political communications, including many advocacy groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, to reveal information about their donors.
Many liberal nonprofit advocacy groups opposed the bill because of an exemption from its requirements that would benefit large membership organizations like the National Rifle Association.
Exemptions would be provided to advocacy groups that have more than 500,000 members, are more than a decade old, have a presence in all states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations or unions.
In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union said that “by exempting larger mainstream organizations from certain disclosure requirements, the bill inequitably suppresses only the speech of smaller, more controversial organizations and compromises the anonymity of small donors.”
The Supreme Court ruled in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that a law barring corporations from using money from their general treasuries for “express advocacy” — to urge that a candidate for federal office be elected or defeated — was unconstitutional.
The court also struck down rules that prohibited corporations from spending money on “electioneering communications” — TV or radio ads that mention a specific federal candidate within 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.
The Senate now will consider the legislation, H.R. 5175, known as the Disclose Act.
2 Responses to Advocacy Groups Divided Over House Passage of Campaign-Finance Bill
ppcllc - June 25, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Unfortunately, the article omits all of the salient facts upon which a reader can make an informed judgement. Anyone familiar with the bill’s history and the secretive manner in which it was drafted and passed knows that its motives are partisan and corrupt, and that it is patently unconstitutional.The ACLU wasn’t opposed to it until a deal was struck to exempt its nemesis, the NRA. To anyone with an ounce of gray matter, that should speak volumes.It is nothing but a thuggish effort to retain power by suppressing free speech.
planet_lover - June 26, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Considering that corporations now have the same legal right as a human being (as of Jan. 2010) this is a good place to start…but pointless if it doesn’t also focus on big donators. Those who donate outrageous sums to either party are more likely to be purchasing influence, and the money trail will lead you to many who are willing to compromise their principles.Unfortunately, when big companies (like bp) go down, their investors also circle the drain with them. Question: if you were an investor with a certain company, would you like to know what type of big money lobbying they are involved in?