Companies would be required to disclose their contributions to political advertising run by organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under a bill being considered by Democratic lawmakers.
The proposed legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on political ads. The Jan. 21 decision triggered concern that companies would funnel unprecedented sums of cash into the chamber’s decades-old system of anonymously funded pro-business campaigns.
Recommended Stories
The bill, which may be introduced as early as next week, would require nonprofit groups, unions and trade associations including the chamber to identify who pays for ads designed to sway opinion on candidates for federal office.
The nation’s biggest business lobbying group, the chamber spent $47 million on issue advertising last year, mostly on health care policy, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington. The chamber has said it plans to spend $50 million on candidate- focused ads alone this year.
An additional $144 million of chamber spending went toward lobbying last year, more than five times that of the second-largest spender, Exxon Mobil Corp. That spending isn’t affected by the court ruling or proposed legislation.
The chamber had fought what it called the suppression of company participation in elections, and hailed the Supreme Court decision in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The proposed legislation would gut what appeared to be a victory for the group.
Should Congress fail to act, “the vast majority of corporate money will move through trade associations and independent organizations,” said Michael Toner, a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a partner at Bryan Cave LLP in Washington.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said in February they planned to introduce the legislation.
The proposed legislation would require disclosure of contributors to ads urging voters to support or oppose a federal candidate, Van Hollen said. It also may extend that requirement to so-called issue ads that favor or oppose an office seeker without explicitly recommending a vote, he said.
In addition to allowing unlimited spending from corporate and union treasuries, the Supreme Court ruling struck down a ban on such ads within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary vote.
