by Chuckie Corra, Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 02:12:23 PM EDT
As most of you probably know by now, Citizens United V. FEC was the biggest SCOTUS decision this year, and arguably for awhile. The 5-4 decision supposedly ended a limit on corporations first amendment rights, according to some of the advocates for the decision.
I personally enjoyed Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick's take on the decision, saying that it creates a "Pinnochio Project" in which the Court transforms "a corporation into a real live boy."
McCain-Feingold advocates most likely wanted to beat their heads against a wall once they caught wind of this decision, because it was a proverbial slap in the face.
Public opinion of what currently stands is overwhelmingly negative. A Washington Post poll taken after the ruling this February showed 8 of 10 respondents were opposed with 65% of polltakers being “strongly opposed” to the ruling. There isn’t even much of a partisan divide when it comes to opposition of this ruling. Bipartisan opposition of this ruling continues, and Congressional Democrats have a lot on their plates when they try curtail some of what the ruling set in place.
Democrats plan to introduce legislation next week that would sharply limit the ability of foreign-connected companies to participate in U.S. politics and require greater transparency from corporations, unions and nonprofit groups that pay for political advertising, according to a confidential summary of the bill.
Source: Washington Post
The legislation being proposed wouldn’t fully negate the decision made by the Supreme Court by any means. The crux of the bill would address would require greater transparency from corporation, unions, etc. who finance political advertising while limiting non-domestic companies participation in American elections. Other facets of the bill would include executives or group leaders to include their names on ads that they fund, much like McCain-Feingold’s “Stand by your ad” provision
According to the summary, obtained by The Washington Post, the legislation would require corporate chief executives or group leaders to publicly attach their names to ads, much like political candidates are required to do. It would also mandate disclosure of major donors whose money is used for "campaign-related activity."
Many Republicans are in opposition to the plan constructed by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). <Insert collective gasp of disbelief here>
Campaign finance reform, has been a controversial issue in American politics for a long time and will continue to be. The McCain-Feingold Act (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) was the first type of legislation in any form to amend/change the Federal Election Act of 1971. The law was passed in 2002, meaning for 30 years the same election standards were in place. Even at that, Russ Feingold and John McCain had been working on getting this through Congress for almost 8 years.
The act faced opposition by everyone's favorite Senator, Mitch McConnell, and eventually led to a Supreme Court case. McConnell V. FEC challenged the Constitutionality of McCain-Feingold.
Schumer and crew hope they can rally some support from Republicans to help pass legislation for this, but only time will tell if that plan comes to fruition.