For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.Responding to one such lawsuit last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously and correctly rejected a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s ban on direct corporate contributions to state political campaigns. The court said the plaintiffs failed to recognize that the Supreme Court had made a “significant distinction” between “independent expenditures” to a campaign and direct “contributions” to a campaign that justify greater restrictions. In the real world that is an artificial distinction — the dangers in big, influence-seeking contributions exist whether the checks go directly to a campaign or for “independent expenditures.” But the Supreme Court recognized the potential for corruption in direct campaign giving in a 2003 decision upholding the federal ban on corporate contributions — a case the Eighth Circuit cited. Another part of the Eighth Circuit decision found aspects of Minnesota’s disclosure law for independent expenditures unduly burdensome. A narrow majority objected to provisions requiring any “association” making independent expenditures of $100 or more a year to create a “political fund,” register it with the state and file regular reports, even for periods in which it was not engaged in political activity. The dissenters said the majority had exaggerated the hardship of compliance and underappreciated the strong public interest in requiring full transparency. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court emphatically endorsed requiring broad disclosure of independent expenditures. Importantly, the new ruling casts no doubt on the constitutionality of the urgently needed federal disclosure bill Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking in July. The legislation has no registration or reporting provisions resembling those rejected in Minnesota. Rather it would require corporations, unions and any other organized group paying for election-cycle messages to disclose expenditures of $10,000 or more within 24 hours of making them, and to identify donors who write checks of $10,000 or more. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and his fellow Republican obstructionists can claim no new excuse for their self-interested behavior. Thursday, September 20, 2012
Corporate Contributions and Disclosure
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 let loose a flood of unlimited independent spending in political campaigns. It has also inspired a wave of lawsuits seeking to overturn the reasonable campaign finance restrictions that remain on the books in various states. For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.Responding to one such lawsuit last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously and correctly rejected a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s ban on direct corporate contributions to state political campaigns. The court said the plaintiffs failed to recognize that the Supreme Court had made a “significant distinction” between “independent expenditures” to a campaign and direct “contributions” to a campaign that justify greater restrictions. In the real world that is an artificial distinction — the dangers in big, influence-seeking contributions exist whether the checks go directly to a campaign or for “independent expenditures.” But the Supreme Court recognized the potential for corruption in direct campaign giving in a 2003 decision upholding the federal ban on corporate contributions — a case the Eighth Circuit cited. Another part of the Eighth Circuit decision found aspects of Minnesota’s disclosure law for independent expenditures unduly burdensome. A narrow majority objected to provisions requiring any “association” making independent expenditures of $100 or more a year to create a “political fund,” register it with the state and file regular reports, even for periods in which it was not engaged in political activity. The dissenters said the majority had exaggerated the hardship of compliance and underappreciated the strong public interest in requiring full transparency. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court emphatically endorsed requiring broad disclosure of independent expenditures. Importantly, the new ruling casts no doubt on the constitutionality of the urgently needed federal disclosure bill Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking in July. The legislation has no registration or reporting provisions resembling those rejected in Minnesota. Rather it would require corporations, unions and any other organized group paying for election-cycle messages to disclose expenditures of $10,000 or more within 24 hours of making them, and to identify donors who write checks of $10,000 or more. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and his fellow Republican obstructionists can claim no new excuse for their self-interested behavior.
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.Responding to one such lawsuit last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously and correctly rejected a constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s ban on direct corporate contributions to state political campaigns. The court said the plaintiffs failed to recognize that the Supreme Court had made a “significant distinction” between “independent expenditures” to a campaign and direct “contributions” to a campaign that justify greater restrictions. In the real world that is an artificial distinction — the dangers in big, influence-seeking contributions exist whether the checks go directly to a campaign or for “independent expenditures.” But the Supreme Court recognized the potential for corruption in direct campaign giving in a 2003 decision upholding the federal ban on corporate contributions — a case the Eighth Circuit cited. Another part of the Eighth Circuit decision found aspects of Minnesota’s disclosure law for independent expenditures unduly burdensome. A narrow majority objected to provisions requiring any “association” making independent expenditures of $100 or more a year to create a “political fund,” register it with the state and file regular reports, even for periods in which it was not engaged in political activity. The dissenters said the majority had exaggerated the hardship of compliance and underappreciated the strong public interest in requiring full transparency. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court emphatically endorsed requiring broad disclosure of independent expenditures. Importantly, the new ruling casts no doubt on the constitutionality of the urgently needed federal disclosure bill Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking in July. The legislation has no registration or reporting provisions resembling those rejected in Minnesota. Rather it would require corporations, unions and any other organized group paying for election-cycle messages to disclose expenditures of $10,000 or more within 24 hours of making them, and to identify donors who write checks of $10,000 or more. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and his fellow Republican obstructionists can claim no new excuse for their self-interested behavior. 