As the U.S. House prepares to vote on the “DISCLOSE Act” today, a deal the majority cut in secret with labor unions is emerging, according to an analysis by the Center for Competitive Politics of the Manager’s Amendment adopted to H.R. 5175 in Wednesday’s House Rules Committee hearing.
“The insider, backroom deals congressional leaders cut with the most powerful interest groups in Washington illustrate why the First Amendment was written to restrict government from regulating political speech,” said Center for Competitive Politics President Sean Parnell. “The DISCLOSE Act would carve up the First Amendment, doling out free speech rights to favored allies while restricting likely critics as midterm elections approach.”
The Manager’s Amendment seems to contain a glaring carve out for the benefit of labor unions. The amendment, authored by House Administration Chairman Robert Brady, would exempt transfers between affiliated entities up to $50,000 from reporting requirements. But labor unions have a far more generous exemption carved out for themselves. The bill now reads that if the transferred amount is attributable to individual dues paid on a regular basis then the transfer amount is attributable to the individual rather than the organization. The average amount of individual, annual union dues ($377) is well below the bill’s threshold of $600 for mandated disclosure.
In effect, unions would be able to shift unlimited amounts of money through various local and federal entities and never have to report or disclose any of it, while many nonprofits and trade groups would.
In Wednesday’s hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, Democrats also rejected GOP amendments to apply parallel regulations to unions. Amendments that would (1) require unions to certify they do not have minimal foreign membership and (2) ban unions representing employees of government contractors from making political expenditures were denied a vote on the House floor by the majority. Similar amendments were rejected during debate on DISCLOSE by the majority in the House Administration Committee.
“For decades, Congress has ensured that campaign finance restrictions affect labor unions and corporations in similar ways,” said Center for Competitive Politics Vice President of Policy Allison Hayward. “This bill is an ugly conglomeration of vague guidelines and outright speech prohibitions that will sow chaos among grassroots groups seeking to speak out about politics.”
Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine, first reported that unions were negotiating with the bill’s sponsors in secret to secure this carve-out: “AFSCME is trying to exempt state and local political organizations that accept soft money-that is, unrestricted contributions from individuals or groups-from being regulated under the bill,” the magazine wrote.
MEDIA OUTLETS ON THE UNION CARVE-OUTS IN DISCLOSE
Roll Call: “DISCLOSE Act Nears Its Finale in the House”
June 24
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who has been a prime Republican sponsor of campaign finance measures in the past, also said he opposes the bill. “I’m very disturbed. It basically gives free rein to the unions,” McCain said.
Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Full Disclosure: Oh, Yeah?”
June 24
As offensive as they may be, the details in the Disclose Act may mean less than their application. The bill would apply one standard to unions but far stricter standards to management. This is unjust and unfair and a typical partisan affront—and an insult to the Constitution.
Union Leader (N.H.): “Disclosed act: Corruption as usual in DC”
June 23
To further control Americans, Democrats in Washington are pushing a bill called the Disclose Act. They say it simply protects us from unregulated corporate speech. In reality, it knee-caps American businesses and many nonprofits while giving unions an advantage over businesses (and incumbent politicians an advantage over everyone) when it comes to political speech.
Daily Caller: “DISCLOSE Act shields Democrat-leaning groups from disclosure requirements”
June 21
The untold story is that Democrats assuaged organized labor’s early opposition to the bill by tailoring its provisions to eke out space for unions. For example, restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can. And consider the bill’s laborious record-keeping rules for certain types of donations. Corporations, unions, non-profits and 527 groups will, for the first time, be required to report donors who give more than $600 if they engage in “express” advocacy—urging voters to support one candidate or another by name.
Christian Science Monitor: “Congress can’t play favorites with the NRA in campaign reform”
June 18
…the provisions of the DISCLOSE Act that would favor one group over another in restricting free speech is [sic] clearly unconstitutional… The bill has other problems of fairness. It is far more restrictive on corporations than labor unions.
Mother Jones: “Labor, Guns, and Money”
June 17
AFSCME is trying to exempt state a
nd local political organizations that accept soft money-that is, unrestricted contributions from individuals or groups-from being regulated under the bill. Under the DISCLOSE Act, such groups, which often receive union backing, would have to disclose their donors if their campaign ads reference a federal candidate. AFSCME opposes having to out itself as the backer of these state and local campaign efforts. “The problem is that we have local union affiliates-we have 4000 of them-that could make a contribution to one of these entities…which could trigger these very detailed disclosure requirements,” said Loveless. He said that AFSCME was “trying to protect these local affiliates” from having to make such disclosures.
The Hill: “Unions to spend $100M in 2010 campaign to save Dem majorities”
May 21
At least two influential unions will spend close to $100 million on the 2010 election, with most of those funds going to protect incumbents… “We have got to protect the incumbency in the House. We have got to protect the incumbency in the Senate,” McEntee said. “It is going to be hard. Those tea-baggers are out there. There is an anti-incumbency mood out there.”
