Dems Calling For Congressional Hearings on Super PACs

Senate Dems hope to push through campaign finance reform by overhauling Super PAC rules

February 1, 2012 RSS Feed Print

One day after Super PACs revealed their fundraising figures for 2011, Senate Democrats are calling for Congressional hearings to expose what they claim is a corrupting influence on national politics.

[U.S. News Debate Club: Will Gingrich Harm the GOP by Staying in the Race?]

"This is corroding our democracy," said Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

They're also vowing to push ahead with legislation that would increase disclosure requirements for donors and ensure they do notsecretly coordinate with campaigns. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision allowed greater leeway for independent groups—such as American Crossroads, coordinated by Republican consultant Karl Rove—to spend money in elections. So far, in this GOP primary, independent groups have played a far greater role in determining outcomes—according to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer's office, comprising 43 percent of the overall campaign spending.

Schumer, who heads the Senate Rules Committee, which will head the hearings later this month, claimed that because the groups aren't connected with the candidates, they focus on negative ads and degrade the campaign dialogue.

"It's seeking the lowest, most horrible common denominator," Schumer said. "The only way to change it is by legislation."

[Ron Paul Confident Heading to Caucuses.]

With a stronger majority in 2010, Democrats tried to force through legislation that required the disclosure of SuperPAC donors, but were stymied by Republican opposition. But on Tuesday, Democratic senators claimed they felt the ugliness of the GOP primary may have turned some minds in the GOP caucus. No Republican senators were on hand to support their calls into investigations into the campaign activity.

"If we continue the spotlight and the focus and the pressure, I think we can get [Republicans] to come forward," Schumer said. "The public is clearly on our side, and this is one of the most important issues facing America."

aparker@usnews.com

Twitter: @AlexParkerDC

Tags:
2012 presidential election,
campaigns,
Congress,
democratic party

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Should we also require the corporate media to quit taking sides?

From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.

From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.

From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But the corporate media were exempted.

But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.

By exempting media, government created “State approved news” with more power than any Super Pac!

Why shouldn’t individuals and groups of individuals enjoy equal freedoms of speech and press to influence elections? I believe newspapers have the right to print and broadcasters the right to speak because they employee people. But I do not believe people should have to buy newspapers to use the press or radio/tv stations to speak.

If the media wont defend their audience rights they may lose their own:

Newspapers Have No First Amendment Exemption from Political Spending Reporting Requirements

Eugene Volokh • September 8, 2011 5:46 pm

Because of this, it generally hasn’t been clear whether the media exemption was constitutionally mandated — whether a legislature could, if it wanted to, regulate newspapers’ expenditures related to political campaigns the same way it regulated other expenditures. But Olson v. City of Golden (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2011) held that such an exemption is not constitutionally mandated.

http://volokh.com/2011/09/08/newspapers-have-no-first-amendment-exemption-from-political-spending-reporting-requirements/

Before you insist on more people muzzling campaign laws watch this video: http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/33-sampson and read the Citizens Guide to participating in Federal elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

BenDoubleCrossed of FL 5:04PM February 01, 2012

Photo Galleries

Before and After the Joplin Tornado

A look at Joplin one year after the deadly tornado.

advertisement

Latest Video