Van Hollen Statement on Upcoming DISCLOSE Act Vote in the Senate
Washington, D.C. ,
Sep 22, 2010 -
Today Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Assistant to the Speaker, issued the following statement on Majority Leader Reid’s announcement that the Senate would once again bring the DISCLOSE Act to the floor for a vote this week:
“I applaud Majority Leader Reid and Senator Schumer’s decision to bring the DISCLOSE Act to the Senate floor for another vote. As we get closer to Election Day, we see the detrimental impact of leaving the Citizens United ruling unchecked – a flood of shadowy special interest spending designed to mislead voters, funded by a select few who want to keep their identities secret.
“We must increase transparency and shine a light on the special interests trying to influence elections – the fundamental nature of our electoral system is at stake. I urge Senate Republicans to end their obstruction of this important legislation and allow a vote on the DISCLOSE Act. Without it, Americans will not have access to the information they deserve in order to make informed decisions. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the DISCLOSE Act.”
BACKGROUND:
USA Today - Midterm campaign fundraising on pace to set record - Fundraising for the midterm congressional elections is smashing records, as Republicans and their allies stage an all-out push to seize control of Congress. Congressional candidates have raised more than $1.2 billion through June, the most recent campaign figures show, surpassing the nearly $886 million collected at the same point in the 2006 elections that put Democrats into power. LINK
NY Times - Donor Names Remain Secret as Rules Shift - “I can tell you from personal experience, the money’s flowing,” said Michael E. Toner, a former Republican F.E.C. commissioner, now in private practice at the firm Bryan Cave. The growing popularity of the groups is making the gaps in oversight of them increasingly worrisome among those mindful of the influence of money on politics. “The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on corporate spending on elections,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, a watchdog group. “And 501(c) serves as a haven for these front groups to run electioneering ads and keep their donors completely secret.” LINK
Baltimore Sun – Editorial - Here comes the cash - Now that the primaries are over, here comes the big money. Freed by a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to use their own cash to pay for campaign ads, Republican leaning groups are mounting impressive fund raising efforts to support their candidates in this fall's congressional elections, matching and likely exceeding Democrats' traditional sources of cash. But unlike the unions and moveon.orgs that have fueled campaign spending in the past, the new players in the world of campaign finance can directly advocate for the victory or defeat of a candidate without identifying themselves or the sources of their money. LINK
NY Times – Editorial - The Secret Election - For all the headlines about the Tea Party and blind voter anger, the most disturbing story of this year’s election is embodied in an odd combination of numbers and letters: 501(c)(4). That is the legal designation for the advocacy committees that are sucking in many millions of anonymous corporate dollars, making this the most secretive election cycle since the Watergate years. As Michael Luo reported in The Times last week, the battle for Congress is largely being financed by a small corps of wealthy individuals and corporations whose names may never be known to the public. And the full brunt of that spending — most of it going to Republican candidates — has yet to be felt in this campaign. LINK
Washington Post - Despite Supreme Court support, disclosure of funding for 'issue ads' has decreased - The Supreme Court has whittled away at the statute, saying it infringes on free speech. But eight of the nine justices have expressed their support for the part of the law that requires disclosing sources of money for issue ads. Despite the court's enthusiasm, there has been less and less disclosure of donors in recent years. In the 2004 election, when the law went into effect, 71 percent of the disclosure forms for issue ads listed the sources of money. So far this year, only 15 percent of the disclosures have listed a source. LINK
Time - The New GOP Money Stampede - In recent days, Ohio voters have probably seen a TV spot ripping Democratic "stimulus and debt" policies, courtesy of a group calling itself Crossroads GPS. They may also have caught an ad by an outfit called the American Action Network praising Republican Congressmen Pat Tiberi and Dave Reichert for "standing up for fiscal responsibility." Meanwhile, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat, is under attack from the Republican Governors Association (RGA) for being a "bad governor," while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been touting the "pro-business" record of GOP Senate candidate Rob Portman. All of these groups are based in D.C., not Ohio. And only one of them, the RGA, is required to disclose its donors — and only a few times a year. Which makes Ohio look less like a boxing ring for the candidates than a chessboard for invisible well-funded operatives hundreds of miles away. Ohio is hardly unique. From Washington to Florida this election season, candidates risk being drowned out by a flood of advertising from a robust new network of little-known conservative political outfits. LINK
Washington Post – EJ Dionne Column - Repairing Citizens United becomes a test for three GOP senators - In a decision that was either the most Machiavellian in American history or the most naive, a 5 to 4 conservative majority broke with decades of precedent and said Congress had no right to ban corporate or labor union spending to influence the outcome of elections. The court ruled that corporations such as Consolidated Megacorp have to be treated the same as living, breathing "persons." The decision is Machiavellian if the conservatives on the court consciously want to bring us back to the 1890s. Or it's naive because the justices didn't consider what their ruling would mean in practice. LINK
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
