- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
- International crises be damned, Obama’s fundraising trip must go on
- Friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of impeding probe
- Train with MH17 plane crash bodies leaves rebel town in Ukraine
- Half of Colorado voters are OK with Hobby Lobby decision, poll shows
- HIV-killing condom to soon hit shelves in Australia
- Estonia pulls plug on Steven Seagal over praise for Putin
- Lawyer: Pelvic exam pics cost Hopkins $190 million
House passes campaign bill
Measure calls for stricter finance disclosures
Question of the Day
A first push by congressional Democrats to counter a Supreme Court decision allowing business and labor groups to spend freely in political campaigns cleared a big hurdle Thursday, as the House narrowly passed legislation that calls for stricter campaign finance disclosures.
The bill, which among other provisions would require that the top five donors of outside groups be identified when they advertise in a political campaign, passed the House by a vote of 219-206, with a number of moderate Democrats defecting on the final vote.
Under the bill, companies holding government contracts worth at least $10 million, corporations with a majority of foreign shareholders and companies that receive taxpayer bailout funds would be banned from engaging in “independent” political activity.
“You vote ‘no’ on this, you are saying, ‘Go ahead and spend millions of dollars - corporations or individuals - and say whatever you want, … but we’re not going to let the voters know who you are,’ ” said the bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat. “That’s what a lot of these interests want.”
But, in line with the argument embraced by a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court case in January, Republicans said the bill was unconstitutional because it would limit free speech. They also argued it did not go far enough to ensure that unions disclose their political activities.
The bill “attempts to use the First Amendment as a partisan sledgehammer to silence certain speakers in favor of others, especially unions,” said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, California Republican.
The legislation is a response to the high court’s ruling last winter that said businesses and unions could spend their own money directly on attempts to sway presidential or congressional elections. The 5-4 ruling overturned decades of precedent, and Democrats in Congress quickly announced plans to overturn some or all of the decision.
President Obama singled out the decision for criticism in his State of the Union address, with a number of the justices seated just yards from where he spoke.
“Corporations are not human beings. … Their mothers can’t die of cancer, their sons can’t be sent off to war,” said Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado Democrat. “Corporations are political zombies, knowing only the pursuit of the flesh of profit.”
Fearing the measure wouldn’t pass, Democratic leaders inserted a provision saying that certain organizations that have been in existence for at least a decade and have at least a 500,00 dues-paying members in all states wouldn’t need to reveal their top donors.
Key among the handful of exempted groups is the NRA. Critics say the provision was nothing more than political concession to the powerful gun-rights group, which had threatened to oppose the measure unless it was protected.
The provision created an unusual political scenario in which Republicans, normally allied with the NRA, spoke out against the powerful gun-rights group.
“Why is the National Rifle Association protected but not the National Right to Life Organization?” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. “They think it’s all right to throw everybody else under the table so they can get a special deal, and frankly, I think it’s disappointing.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele accused Democrats of being “more focused on blatantly stacking the electoral deck ahead of the midterms than they are about creating jobs and reducing the debt.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP tests Democrats on college loan issue
- Lawmakers outside intelligence loop get miffed about briefing structure in Congress
- John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor
- Supreme Court nears rulings on key voting rights cases
- N.J. Gov. Christie picks state A.G. to fill U.S. Senate seat
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Rihanna, Dwight Howard delete #FreePalestine tweets
- U.S. scrambles as violence escalates in Israel-Hamas conflict
- Ron Paul: U.S. partly to blame for Malaysia Airlines disaster
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- EDITORIAL: Snipers from the left target Hillary
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq