Secret campaign ad financing in offing as FEC is deadlocked
Independent political groups, especially those backing conservatives, say federal disclosure law doesn't apply to them. The FEC is at an impasse. Democrats want full disclosure of who's paying for political ads; Republicans say they favor a hands-off approach.
By David G. Savage and Kim Geiger,
Washington Bureau, LA Times
February 28, 2011
Reporting from Washington
If an impasse at the Federal Election Commission remains, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals will be able to fund hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign advertisements for next year's presidential and congressional elections while keeping their names and roles secret.
The agency's three Democratic commissioners want full disclosure — saying current law and the Supreme Court's most recent decision on campaign spending require it. The three Republican commissioners challenge that interpretation and favor a largely hands-off approach.
Last year, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court said for the first time that corporations and unions had a constitutional right to spend unlimited sums on campaign advertising so long as it was independent of candidates or parties. At the same time, the court reaffirmed an existing federal law, which says that "all contributors" of $1,000 or more to an "electioneering communications" fund must disclose their identities to the FEC.
The justices said they foresaw a new era of corporate-funded ads combined with "effective disclosure" so citizens and shareholders would know who was paying for the messages. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
(More here.)
By David G. Savage and Kim Geiger,
Washington Bureau, LA Times
February 28, 2011
Reporting from Washington
If an impasse at the Federal Election Commission remains, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals will be able to fund hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign advertisements for next year's presidential and congressional elections while keeping their names and roles secret.
The agency's three Democratic commissioners want full disclosure — saying current law and the Supreme Court's most recent decision on campaign spending require it. The three Republican commissioners challenge that interpretation and favor a largely hands-off approach.
Last year, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court said for the first time that corporations and unions had a constitutional right to spend unlimited sums on campaign advertising so long as it was independent of candidates or parties. At the same time, the court reaffirmed an existing federal law, which says that "all contributors" of $1,000 or more to an "electioneering communications" fund must disclose their identities to the FEC.
The justices said they foresaw a new era of corporate-funded ads combined with "effective disclosure" so citizens and shareholders would know who was paying for the messages. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
(More here.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home