Interest Groups and Political Ads
A unique development in the election of 2012 which has not been present in the recent presidential elections is the prevalence of so called "pac money", i.e. political advertising by interest groups who are technically at arm's length from a particular candidate, but who are supportive of a particular candidate, critical of that candidate's opponents or often both. Previously this was prohibited by The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act). Section 203 of this act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
In the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Corporation, the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The case overrule previous court precedents.
One of the biggest critics of the court's decision was a former law professor, President Barack Obama. He said that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates". Obama later expanded on this criticism in his weekly radio address on January 23, 2010. In that address he said:
This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.
I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.
All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.
It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.
It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.
We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
On January 27, 2010, President Obama condemned this decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, while the members of the court were present. He said "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
In February 2010, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland outlined proposed legislation aimed at undoing this decision. In April 2010, they introduced that legislation in the Senate and House, respectively. On June 24, 2010, House Resolution 5175 (The DISCLOSE Act) passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. It would have required additional disclosure by corporations of their campaign expenditures. The law, if passed, would also have prohibited political spending by U.S. companies with twenty percent or more foreign ownership, and by most government contractors.
The DISCLOSE Act included exemptions to its rules given to certain special interests such as the National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. These gaps within the proposal attracted criticism from lawmakers on both political parties. As Republican Congressman Dan Lungren of California put it, "they are auctioning off pieces of the First Amendment in this bill... The bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less disclosure you have". Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California was also critical of this, stating "I wish there had been no carve-outs".
The DISCLOSE Act has failed twice to pass the U.S. Senate in the 111th Congress, in both instances reaching only 59 of the 60 votes required to overcome a unified Republican filibuster. For the foreseeable future, it looks like this form of political advertising is here to stay.
In the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Corporation, the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The case overrule previous court precedents.
One of the biggest critics of the court's decision was a former law professor, President Barack Obama. He said that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates". Obama later expanded on this criticism in his weekly radio address on January 23, 2010. In that address he said:
This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.
I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.
All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.
It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.
It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.
We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.
On January 27, 2010, President Obama condemned this decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, while the members of the court were present. He said "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
In February 2010, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland outlined proposed legislation aimed at undoing this decision. In April 2010, they introduced that legislation in the Senate and House, respectively. On June 24, 2010, House Resolution 5175 (The DISCLOSE Act) passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. It would have required additional disclosure by corporations of their campaign expenditures. The law, if passed, would also have prohibited political spending by U.S. companies with twenty percent or more foreign ownership, and by most government contractors.
The DISCLOSE Act included exemptions to its rules given to certain special interests such as the National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. These gaps within the proposal attracted criticism from lawmakers on both political parties. As Republican Congressman Dan Lungren of California put it, "they are auctioning off pieces of the First Amendment in this bill... The bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less disclosure you have". Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California was also critical of this, stating "I wish there had been no carve-outs".
The DISCLOSE Act has failed twice to pass the U.S. Senate in the 111th Congress, in both instances reaching only 59 of the 60 votes required to overcome a unified Republican filibuster. For the foreseeable future, it looks like this form of political advertising is here to stay.