There’s room for disagreement over interpreting the DISCLOSE Act, a complex bill to remake the campaign finance system while midterm campaigns are underway. There’s uncertainty over the amount of post-Citizens United “express advocacy” spending that may occur, there are questions about how grassroots groups could comply with the onerous requirements, and there are legitimate disagreements over the policy wisdom and constitutionality of various provisions.
Unfortunately, though, sponsors and supporters of the DISCLOSE Act continue to obfuscate and distort the contents of the bill.
After Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) announced that he would not support the legislation (because it sought to impose a tactical advantage for the majority party right before the elections and contained carve outs for unions and large interests such as the National Rifle Association), Politico caught up with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the bill’s sponsor, to get his reaction:
The bill “simply requires disclosure, which in the Supreme Court decision was specifically said to be constitutional. And the disclosure is across the board,” Schumer said in response to Brown’s grievances. “There’s no discrimination between one group or another. Obviously, small contributions don’t have to be disclosed like large ones do, but that would be true of any organization.”
Schumer’s statement seems to be coming from a parallel universe.
First, as anyone who has been paying close attention to this legislation knows, House Democrats cut a deal with the NRA to exempt them from the bill’s disclosure requirements. After an outcry, the exemption was widened to other large, established interest groups. Nonprofit 501 (c)(4) organizations with more than 500,000 members that have been around for more than 10 years with members in every state would be exempted, provided that they don’t accept more than 15 percent of corporate or union funds nor use such funds for political spending. So, the NRA would not be forced to name their individual donors over $600 if they spent money on campaign ads, but the Gun Owners of America would. Schumer’s statement that “[t]here’s no discrimination between one group or another” is misleading at best.
Furthermore, the night before the House vote, Democrats inserted a carve out for labor unions and their affiliates. The DISCLOSE Act includes a burdensome requirement to disclose funding transfers from one group to another, even if they’re affiliated or not made with the intent of supporting political spending. Yet labor unions were exempted from this requirement (the amendment was written in such a way that many election lawyers think it only applies to labor unions). Other nonprofits that don’t have the same funding structure as labor unions (recurring dues) would be forced to comply with this burden. Again, Schumer’s contention that “[t]here’s no discrimination between one group or another” is not accurate.
Second, Schumer claims that DISCLOSE “simply requires disclosure, which in the Supreme Court decision was specifically said to be constitutional. And the disclosure is across the board.” Wrong.
DISCLOSE would ban-not require disclosure of, ban-independent political spending by companies with sizable federal contacts, including over half of the top 50 U.S. companies (even when the contracts are a negligible percentage of their total revenue and even if they’re competitively bid in a transparent manner). Ford Motor Co. would be prohibited from spending money advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates, but the United Auto Workers union could spend freely. DISCLOSE would impose no similar burden on unions that directly negotiate for salary and benefits with the government. In addition, it would leave out unions that represent workers at government contractors, who obviously have a comparable economic interest in whether the firm receives government contracts.
DISCLOSE would also ban the independent expenditures and electioneering communications of U.S. companies with more than 20 percent international investment. Verizon Wireless would be prohibited from spending, but the Communications Workers of America would be free to spend unlimited sums. Although DISCLOSE backers claim to target the international investment provision at eliminating foreign influence in elections, it targets only for-profit corporations, exempting unions with substantial foreign involvement. For example, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents workers in both the U.S. and Canada, and has a Canadian director. Yet they would be able to spend unlimited amounts.
Schumer’s assertion that the DISCLOSE Act is “very fair and does not impede anyone’s rights,” leads us to believe that Schumer has not even read his own bill.
