Sometimes when I am feeling especially naïve, I think how nice it would be if we could trust our representatives in Congress to play reasonably fair and not use the system for partisan advantage. But we can’t, of course. Here is the most recent example.
President Obama made his displeasure with the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case clear earlier this year. The Citizens United decision invalidated a law which had prohibited corporations from making certain types of political speech in the 30 days before a primary election and in the 60 days before a general election.
Now the first thing to note here is that the word "corporation" does not just mean businesses. "Corporation" as used here refers to a form of organization. Businesses are usually corporations, but so are labor unions and public interest groups. So the Supreme Court decision did not just free up businesses, it allowed unions and public interest groups to talk, too. (President Obama didn’t mention this point when he complained about the decision in his State of the Union address.)
Along with President Obama, the Democrats in Congress did not like this decision. So they have come up with something called the DISCLOSE Act. "DISCLOSE" is short for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections". (Truth in labeling laws do not apply to Congress.)
Of course, the real purpose of the Disclose Act is to help Democrats in the fall elections by limiting the right of businesses and others to say what they think about various candidates. The initial bill, which was sponsored by the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (you can’t make this stuff up; nobody would believe it), didn’t apply to unions – for some unknown reason. That wasn’t going to fly in the Senate so the limits now apply to businesses and unions, except for practical reasons, the effect will be more on businesses than unions.
There is also an exception for some interest groups, though not many. The original exception was tailored to exclude just the National Rifle Association. This was done in the House because otherwise Blue Dog Democrats would have voted against the bill. (As I said, you can’t make this stuff up.) That was so outrageous that a few other interest groups are now also excluded, but not many.
The bill is scheduled for a cloture vote in the Senate this week. There haven’t been any hearings, but Senator Reid doesn’t have time for that. He has elections to win (both personal and for his party).
The pure partisanship in all of this can be seen in the number of Republicans who voted for the bill in the House (two) and the number Senator Reid is hoping to pick up in the Senate (also about two). Whatever you think of McCain-Feingold (and I didn’t like it), it was bipartisan. This thing is about as bipartisan as the annual Cubs Convention.
The First Amendment should ultimately stop this. But that won’t happen immediately, and all the Democrats care about is getting past November. They can worry about the next election later.
Of course, the Democrats in Congress have the perfect role model for what they are doing here in President Obama. When he was just another candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, he agreed that, if John McCain was the Republican nominee and Senator McCain agreed to accept public financing for the presidential election, he would, too. After then-Senator Obama won the nomination and he realized he could raise more money than Senator McCain, he backed out, claiming that what he was doing was the equivalent of public financing because the public was giving him contributions.* (One more time: You can’t make this stuff up.)
All in all, about the only thing the DISCLOSE Act discloses is how far the Democrats will go to win in November.
---------------
Sources re DISCLOSE Act: Debra Saunders, "In Washington, ‘Disclose’ Means Stifle," June 29, 2010; Russell Berman, "House approves campaign finance measure by 219-206," The Hill, June 24, 2010; "The Schumer for Majority Leader Act," The Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2010;
Update (7/28/10 8:45/8:55 am): While I was writing this yesterday and before I posted it this morning, the Senate defeated Senator Reid's cloture vote 57-41. All Senate Republicans voted no (except John Ensign who was absent). All Democrats voted yes. Once again: If you can't get Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, it says something about the bill.
Comments