- The Washington Times - Monday, January 25, 2010

The White House and Democratic lawmakers are moving swiftly to come up with new restraints on corporate political spending, including advertising limits on any company receiving bailout money, to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court ruling President Obama calls “devastating.”

Mr. Obama has unloaded on a divided Supreme Court for allowing more corporate influence over elections, intensifying his criticism of a ruling that has suddenly reshaped campaign rules in the midst of a midterm election year. The court’s 5-4 decision on Thursday allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target particular candidates by name, and lifts the barring of union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of campaigns.

“We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” Mr. Obama said Saturday, devoting his weekly radio and Internet address to the topic. “And we don’t intend to.”

The White House is working chiefly with Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, on a bill pushing back on the court decision. The goal is to put forward legislation within two weeks, Mr. Van Hollen said, but the choices are limited by the nature of the court’s First Amendment ruling.

Among the options under consideration are requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run a political ad; requiring the CEO of the company to appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it; limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or that get federal contracts; and trimming down the privileges that come with legal corporate status if companies pump money into political campaigns.

“There are some gray areas here, and so we’re exploring our options,” Mr. Van Hollen told the Associated Press. “Obviously this requires more legal analysis, and we’re looking at that.”

Republicans hailed the court decision.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio called it “a big win for the First Amendment and a step in the right direction.”

Any proposals to curb the ruling’s influence would also have to win the approval of both chambers of Congress. Mr. Obama has promised a bill that will be both bipartisan and forceful.

He is also expected to address the campaign finance issue in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

The court’s decision wrestled with the matter of campaign spending as free speech. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made a vigorous argument for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech.

Yet the president is among those who see it as blowing open the doors to big-business influence over democracy. He predicted that anyone who runs for election and tries to take on powerful special interests will now be more likely to be “under assault come election time.”

Mr. Obama also said the decision will make it harder to enact financial, tax, health care and energy changes.

Said Mr. Van Hollen: “At a time when Americans are more worried than ever that special interests are running the show, this will further undermine their confidence in our democracy.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide