Peter Overby and Andrea Seabrook
<...>
Two such groups advertising in Pittsburgh are Americans for Job Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Both are 501(c)s, organized under the tax code as nonprofits. The law says they can't engage in politics as their primary purpose. It also says they can accept unlimited donations and don't have to report their donors. Couple that with the U.S. Supreme Court's
Citizens United ruling, and you have a wide-open path for corporate money to flow into partisan politics.
That's what makes these ads different from those by party committees: Candidates and party committees have legal limits on the size of donations they can take from each donor, and they have to report the names and numbers of the donors and how much they gave. It gives context to the ad.
There's almost no context with the noncandidate, nonparty, supposedly nonpolitical groups. But they do have to disclose something — not to voters, but to the TV stations. And whatever they disclose to the TV stations, the stations must disclose to the public. It's the only way to track down how many ads these groups are running and just how much they are spending.
<...>
The ads in Pittsburgh attacked candidates of both parties, but the ones attacking Republicans were all from Democratic candidates or party committees, groups that have to disclose their donors. Not one ad from the supposedly nonpolitical groups attacked a Republican. All of those ads are aimed at Democrats.
moreThat is the point that's missing in this debate. Citizens did not give these groups the freedom to spend in political campaigns
without disclosure.
<...>
Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.
<...>
That is why the Chamber keeps insisting it has a system. The law is specific, and taking the Chamber's word that they have a system is bogus. Why are some demanding that Democrats simply accept the Chamber at their word?
Federal Court Upholds Disclosure LawThe DISCLOSE Act seeks to require disclosure by organizations like the Chamber. While Citizens ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts, it did not change the disclosure requirement for advocacy for a specific candidate.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
