In this article, CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith examines several practical and constitutional issues with campaign finance disclosure. In particular, Smith scrutinizes those policies being advocated by proponents of greater regulation of political speech in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A primary political reaction to Citizens United […]
Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, External Relations Sub-Pages, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Stand By Your Ad, Bradley A. Smith, Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance disclosure, campaign finance reform, Capital University Law School, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. FEC, Dark Money, FECA, First Amendment, independent speech, money in politics, NAACP v. Alabama, West Virginia University, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Stand By Your Ad
On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Since then, congressional critics of the Court’s broad holding have promised a legislative “fix.” These Members believe that the decision to recognize constitutional protection for corporate (and labor) independent expenditures in federal elections will have a pernicious effect on American politics. Accordingly, on April 29, 2010, Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen introduced the “DISCLOSE Act.”
The DISCLOSE Act contains two main features. First, it requires corporations to include certain notices in their expenditures and file additional disclosure reports. Second, the DISCLOSE Act identifies certain types of corporations that would not be permitted to make independent expenditures.Leaders in both the Senate and the House have promised expedited consideration of this legislation. The sponsors intend for it to enter into effect for much of the 2010 election cycle.
Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Research, campaign finance, campaign finance disclosure, DISCLOSE, Disclose Act, Disclosure, Coordination, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Coordination, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Stand By Your Ad
This chapter first appeared in The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, edited by Michael J. Malbin (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), pp. 139-162. In “Much More of the Same: Television Advertising Pre- and Post-BCRA,” Franz et al. examine the impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) on campaign advertising.
After BCRA was passed, signed into law by former President Bush, and upheld by the Supreme Court, many analysts predicted that the shape and volume of television advertising would look drastically different in a post-BCRA world. This chapter examines that notion and concludes that analysts’ predictions were drastically off the mark. In general, this study highlights three major points: (1) the most important independent variable in almost every major model of political advertising remains the competitiveness of the race, despite changes prescribed by BCRA; (2) the “stand by your ad” provision of BCRA had negligible effects on the tone of advertising; and (3) interest groups and soft money continued to play a major role, albeit in different forms. Accordingly, the authors show that advertising in post-BCRA America is largely the same as in pre-BCRA America.