Litigation

MN Joins States Passing New Disclosure Laws

By Peter Hardin

Minnesota’s legislators have voted unanimously to make it easier for citizens to follow the money when it comes to corporate political spending.

In a session that just wrapped up, the lawmakers agreed to require corporations and unions to disclose their expenditures to influence elections. The legislation was a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, according to a Star Tribune article.

The legislation also requires a disclaimer in campaign materials that tells who paid for the advertisement and what candidate it opposes or supports, according to a statement by the Midwest Democracy Network. It is an ally of Justice at Stake.

The Minnesota measure won strong approval with a unanimous vote in the Senate and a 131-0 vote in the House.

Minnesota joined a growing list of states where legislators have passed reform bills for greater disclosure of corporate political spending following the blockbuster campaign finance decision. These states include Colorado, where legislation was awaiting the governor’s signature, Arizona, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa (see Gavel Grab.)

In another state, Wisconsin, the Government Accountability Board adopted a rule for greater disclosure requirements, and the legislature chose not to override the new regulation.

In Minnesota, Mike Dean, executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, called the legislation “a necessary first step to bring corporate and union political advertising into the sunlight.”

Dean said the legislation “should lay the groundwork for much larger reforms during the next legislative session,? including shareholder notification of political expenditures, and moving Minnesota to a full public financing system.

Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that Minnesota’s existing  restrictions on  on independent political expenditures by corporations were unconstitutional.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce had asked for a declaratory ruling in the wake of Citizens United. It lifted restraints imposed by Congress and permitted unlimited corporate spending to support or oppose federal candidates.

According to an article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, a proposal for a constitutional amendment on judicial selection did not pass. It was intended to replace contested elections to decide on a sitting judge?s future with up-or-down retention elections. It also would have set up a non-partisan commission to evaluate judges near the ends of their terms.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 18, 2010 (boomark / email).