Consumer Law

In the Wake of Citizens United, Corporations Want to Fund Campaign Ads . . . Anonymously

By Brian Wolfman

The Washington Post explains today:

After a landmark Supreme Court ruling [in Citizens United] this year freed executives to spend unlimited corporate cash on campaigns, some predicted that businesses would flood television airwaves with pro-industry political ads -- but that just hasn't happened yet. Image-sensitive corporations are still trying to make sure that, if they jump into 2010 politicking, they do so as anonymously as possible, according to Republican political operatives and trade group leaders.

In the Post article, David Bossie, the head of Citizens United, acknowledges that corporations want to fund political campaigns without having to answer any questions: "You want to speak your piece without political retribution." 

Congressional democrats recognize that corporations that fund campaign ads want anonymity and so have proposed to do away with it. The DISCLOSE Act would, as the Post article explains it, "require chief executives to appear for a few seconds in campaign ads they finance, saying they personally endorse the message. Umbrella groups would have to list the top five corporate donors for an ad."

The Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act is S. 3295; the House version is H.R. 5175, which is accompanied by this Committee report.

Anyone know the DISCLOSE Act's prospects for enactment?

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on June 01, 2010 (boomark / email).