Citizens United

Through a series of proposed laws and regulations, some politicians are attempting the silence the voice of business.

"Campaign finance laws...easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices, insulating current officeholders from challenge and criticism. When such laws apply only to certain speakers or subjects, the danger of illicit motive becomes even greater..." - Elena Kagan

Obama Administration - Proposed Executive Order

A Choice No American Should Be Forced To Make

Just when you thought we’d heard the last of the Administration’s efforts to muzzle their political adversaries, along comes a “draft” Executive Order that seeks to accomplish unilaterally what they couldn’t pass through Congress last year. In some ways, this effort goes a step further.

The “draft” Executive Order that the White House has now confirmed is authentic would mandate that all businesses seeking to contract with the federal government first disclose their political contributions. The order doesn’t stop with the business itself; it extends to the political spending of the officers and directors as well. In other words, the Obama Administration believes determining one's political leanings is a prerequisite for determining the qualifications of a company to do business with the government.

#2 House Democrat Opposes President’s Executive Order

In a fortuitous development, the #2 House Democrat said today that he opposes President Obama’s draft executive order to require businesses to disclose their political donations for the last 2 years as part of their bids on federal government contracts.

Challenging FEC Regulations

Another Desperate Attempt to Resurrect the Corpse of the DISCLOSE Act

Rep. Van Hollen launched Phase II of the White House’s plan to ferret out and punish political foes by announcing that he has hired a law firm to challenge Federal Election Commission regulations issued many years ago. Rep. Van Hollen is attacking FEC regulations for – surprise – not forcing participants in the political process to disclose their political leanings to the government and the public.

This is the latest in a clearly coordinated and desperate attempt by the White House and House Democrats to resurrect the corpse of the DISCLOSE Act.

Defeating the DISCLOSE Act

» View the latest ad

Passage of DISCLOSE Act an Assault on Freedom of Speech

The Democratic majority in the House jammed through a piece of legislation that clearly violates the Constitution, as well as basic principles of fairness and equity. Citizens are appalled that with a faltering economy, massive unemployment, and an unfolding environmental disaster, Congress is focusing on protecting their own jobs first.

Letter to the Senate from 309 organizations opposing S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act:

Although campaign-finance legislation has assuredly provoked strong disagreements in the past, it has been introduced in the Senate previously with bipartisanship and evident good intentions for the American political process. By contrast, the so-called DISCLOSE Act comes to the Senate already freighted with the backroom deal-making with powerful interests that barely won it passage in the House, and which is the antithesis of campaign-finance "reform." The favoritism and partisanship evident in the bill's journey through the House permeate its provisions and its substance. Whatever one may think of the Citizens United decision, and however important it may be to bring as much transparency as possible to the political process, this bill is not the answer. We urge you to oppose this legislation.

The disclosure requirements "will make them think twice," before attempting to influence election outcomes, [Sen. Schumer] said, adding, "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated."  Wall Street Journal

U.S. Chamber Key Vote Letter to the Senate: 

The clear purpose of S. 3628 is to upend irretrievably core First Amendment protections of political speech in the months leading up to an election. The protection of free speech rights is too important to the foundation of American democracy to be infringed. The Chamber strongly urges you to oppose S. 3628

"I am very committed to getting this legislation passed in the House, passed in the Senate and on the President?s desk by the time the midterm elections are in full swing."  Rep. Robert Brady, Committee on House Administration Chair

Tom Donohue, U.S. Chamber President and CEO:

What's most in need of disclosure is the real purpose behind this bill?it's nothing more than a brazen attempt to tilt the playing field in favor of the incumbent party in this fall's elections, silence constitutionally protected speech, and abridge First Amendment rights...It's no coincidence that Rep. Van Hollen is the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Sen. Schumer is immediate past chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Sen. Schumer even admits his legislation is designed to 'impact' this fall's elections 'as much as possible.' Stifling free speech is an abuse of the legislative process and is unconstitutional. It will not stand. Free speech does not corrupt our politics, but efforts to limit it do.

"My view is that many CEOs of major organizations will [air ads] if they don?t have to disclose, but once they have to come up front and disclose, they will not do it," [Sen.] Schumer said.

Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Partner:

...the plain intent of the Schumer and Van Hollen legislation?the purpose invoked by its sponsors?is to discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to free speech. One can understand why today's party leaders may want to silence discussions on their continued fitness for office, but the First Amendment simply does not tolerate it. --

Perhaps the most striking thing about the Disclose Act is that, while the Supreme Court overturned limits on spending by both corporations and unions, Disclose seeks to reimpose them only on corporations. The FEC must constantly fight to overcome the perception that the law is merely a partisan tool of dominant political interests. Failure to maintain an evenhanded approach towards unions and corporations threatens public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.