Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts to influence elections at all levels of government.
The danger is real: if ExxonMobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.
And the danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race – small change to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for a local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.
Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests will be able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens could be drowned out of the electoral process.
As President Obama noted in his State of the Union Address, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC could “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Today we filed the Massachusetts Corporate Political Accountability Act, by far the strongest and most comprehensive legislative response to the Citizens United decision put forward anywhere in the country. This bill is about protecting the integrity of our democratic system from the corrosive influence of profit driven electioneering.
If passed, this legislation will:
Require corporate sponsored political advertising to abide by the same disclosure laws that apply to other political spending and require CEO’s to appear in person in the ads their companies pay for, to take credit for the ad and inform the public that they “approved this message.”
Prevent corporate interests from hiding their identities behind dummy organizations by requiring the top 5 contributors to an organization putting out a political ad to identify themselves in the ads they pay for.
Ban organizations making independent expenditures from sharing staff with campaigns they are supporting.
Ban state contractors or prospective state contractors from making campaign contributions or paying for political advertisements on behalf of any candidates for public office.
Require the approval of a majority of the board of directors for any corporate political spending and require companies that issue stock to get the approval of their shareholders and include data on political spending in annual reports.
And ban foreign corporations, foreign states and foreign political parties from influencing Massachusetts elections.
In addition, we also filed a resolution calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision and protect free speech for people. You can learn more about that effort here.
It’s clear we need action on the national level to deal with this far-reaching Supreme Court decision, and we need it quickly.
But regardless of what happens at the national level, we also need to take action here in Massachusetts to protect the integrity of our elections. By enacting these reforms we can get closer to ensuring that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.
I just hope that SCOTUS’s wacko squad doesn’t eviscerate this as well.
Yes, they can make any decision they want. The corporation is only a legal entity that is given “life” by the state through the appropriate laws of that state. (I think MGL Chapter 155 gives the rights and responsibilities of Massachusetts corporations.) If the corporations are birthed by the state and given the terms under which they must exist, I see it as difficult for SCOTUS to come up with federal rules to thwart states making rules as to how corporations make political donations anymore than how they pay state taxes.
<
p>We saw something similar a few years back when SCOTUS decided to be outlandish with eminent domain. Many states covered their citizens with better state laws.
<
p>(Is it me or is the federal government just getting dysfunctional?)
<
p>“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” –Judge Learned Hand
The idea of having the heads of orgs. appear is excellent. I’d also like to know which ‘friend’ groups are also union-funded, as that’s seen in legislative races.
The totally ineffectuality of state and even federal governments to do anything contrary to the interests of the globalist multi-nationals, their think tanks who Strategic Communications Laboratories mold the very opionions of “your” culturally adjusted peasant populations.
<
p>Well I mean it’s like spending a trillion dollars to elect the local dog catcher. Sustainabilitywise of course!
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You! And you are so right this has to be done on a national level. Not just at election time either. Corporations play too heavy a role in the way legislation is passed. I just watched PBS’s Frontline: Obama’s Deal.
<
p>It seems to me that the two biggest mistakes that Obama made with regard to healthcare reform was striking deals with the health insurance industry and Big Pharma right off the bat. It seems he had no choice, because the threat of an advertising campaign to undermine the legislation was on the table if Obama didn’t comply. (I was looking for some courage on Obama’s part, to say “no” that he wasn’t going to play that game.)
<
p>Mega industries tie our governments hands on important legislation all the time, simply because they can manipulate the electorate with these advertisements that are nothing more than a hit job with a mask on. This really has to stop.
<
p>Notice the difference:
<
p>1994 Harry & Louise: No government deal with mega industries – Paid for by the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices:
<
p>
<
p>2009 Harry & Louise: Government deal with mega industries – Paid for by the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America/Families USA (too funny):
<
p>
<
p>Harry and Louise were busy during the 2008 election too, trying to control and manipulate the narrative and set the stage for a plan that was good for the industry, not the people. “Bring everyone to the table and make it happen.” This 2008 ad was paid for by Health Care First. The top five donors to that facade would have been helpful.
<
p>Thanks so much for all you do, Senator Eldridge! PLEASE keep up the great work; it is tremendously appreciated. We need courage in our leadership big time now and you bring that to the table in an impressive way. : )
… I fear that it can, and will be, successfully challenged in Federal Court. However, maybe “the fight” is just what we need to mobilize the political will to restore the concept of “We the People” rather than “we the corporation.”
<
p>Thank you for actually doing something, even if it turns out to be futile. It’s far more than most.