The First Amendment vs. the DISCLOSE Act
Washington,
Jun 24, 2010 -
The First Amendment vs. the DISCLOSE Act
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and vote on the controversial DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175):
The measure, called the DISCLOSE Act, comes in response to a hot-button Supreme Court decision in January that lifted limits on political spending by outside groups. And top Democrats have been making the case to their rank and file that the bill, which would impose new requirements that groups sponsoring ads and other political communications identify themselves and their top donors, is a must-pass to keep hostile corporate money from flooding into the midterms. -Roll Call, June 24, 2010
The authors of this bill, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are playing a questionable hand in campaign finance reform. Paying great attention to special interests, the act favors unions likely to help Democrats get elected to Congress and deters citizen engagement in the political process.
Two leading Republican Senators provided alarming statements to Roll Call [emphasis added]:
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said Wednesday that Republicans are “largely united [against] ... this exercise in hypocrisy.”
Similarly, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who has been a prime Republican sponsor of campaign finance measures in the past, also said he opposes the bill. “I’m very disturbed. It basically gives free rein to the unions,” McCain said.
Even Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) – the most outspoken Democrat against the bill – was quoted as saying: “It may be good for a state or two, but for our national good it doesn’t square.”
Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal drives to the truth behind the DISCLOSE Act in her June 18 column:
Mr. Schumer isn't arguing the new corporate rights under Citizen United; he's been forthright that his goal is rather to embarrass companies out of exercising those rights. The bill will make companies "think twice," he rejoiced. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated." Democratic incumbents won't underestimate it.
And the unions? Carved out. The bill technically requires both corporations and unions to report donors of more than $600 a year. But that number wasn't pulled out of a hat. The average dues of the nation's 15 largest U.S. unions were $377 in 2004. And while government contractors are restricted, the bill contains no such bars for unions that receive federal money or have collective bargaining agreements with government. The AFL-CIO and SEIU can continue speaking loudly and anonymously.
The DISCLOSE Act is not about protecting the American citizen or “transparency” in campaign finance. It limits freedom of speech which impedes our fundamental right. Furthermore the act has hastily been brought to the floor for votes, and if passed, this partisan bill is required to be enacted within 30 days -- before the 2010 elections.
The DISCLOSE Act Report, which includes a review from both the Majority (page 1) and Minority (page 84), can be viewed here: http://www.rules.house.gov/111/CommJurRpt/111_hr5175_rpt.pdf
Tune in to C-SPAN this afternoon for votes on the DISCLOSE Act. I encourage you to leave me a comment about your stance on this act on my blog page, or join the discussion with others from our district at www.facebook.com/repkennymarchant.
