|
|
Posts Tagged ‘Citizens United’
Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LOBBYING HAS ALWAYS been a difficult job. Yet more seems to be expected of lobbyists by the day. When it comes to fundraising, for example, “much of the pressure falls to K St.” This is resulting in the unenviable phenomenon of “no downtime.”
But the burden of fundraising is doing much more than corroding lobbyists’ leisure, which is always in short supply. It’s also affecting their finances. In order to meet the demands of a post-Citizens world, lobbyists are cutting more checks. An anonymous lobbyist in the above-linked article laments how “my kids are all going to community college since I’m giving all this money away.” Apparently time itself is no longer a sufficient sacrifice on K St.
On the one hand, nothing is new here. Campaign pledges and donations have long been used by lobbyists for leverage. Some have perfected the art of winning support through piecemeal contributions, effectively luring lawmakers to their cause, donation by donation, pledge by pledge.
On the other hand, everything is new. When a certain group of robed justices blows the top off years of campaign finance precedence (which they’re primed to do again), the debris will fall for years. The full effect of Citizens is thus yet to be felt by lobbyists. One thing is overwhelmingly evident: the depth of their wallets has a limit, whereas what’s expected of them does not. This forces a question upon all lobbyists struggling to stay relevant: how much is too much?
Tags: Citizens United, roll call
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on How Much is Too Much?
Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
RESTORE OUR FUTURE, the largest Super PAC to date, is the fundraising behemoth that was behind the Romney campaign. Its millions buttressed the ad blitz that arrested Speaker Gingrich’s primary momentum. Its donors have included millionaires, billionaires, federal contractors, and a phantom company that PAC, American Crossroads). A no less cogent designation has been applied to RoF’s very own Larry McCarthy, “attack ads’ go-to guy.” McCarthy is none other than the man who created the paragon of attack ads, the 30-second Willie Horton broadcast that knocked the wind out of Michael Dukakis. Though the Horton bit remains matchless, McCarthy’s Iowa ads stirred just as much frustration in their target (Gingrich), and in the fact-checkers who bestowed them with four Pinocchios.
The Sunlight Foundation has a webpage called “Follow the Unlimited Money,” which reveals how RoF’s cash is spent. So far 90% of its expenditures have been piled on attack ads, $89 million of which opposed Democrats and $40 million of which opposed Republicans. The remaining 10% went to positive ads for Republicans. A Democrat has yet to receive a dime.
Tags: Ben Smith, Carl Forti, Charles Spies, Citizens United, Gingrich, Karl Rove, Kenneth Vogel, Larry Mccarthy, Michael Dukakis, Mother Jones, Restore Our Future, Romney, Super PAC, the sunlight foundation, Willie Horton
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Brief Profile of the Super PAC of Super PACs
Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LAST TUESDAY, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to campaign contribution limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The limits in question are the ceilings – adjusted for inflation – that donors cannot exceed in a two-year election cycle. SCOTUSblog explains:
The two-year ceiling … — and this is what the new appeal is challenging – is set at $117,000 overall. That is broken down into $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to non-candidate entities, including national political parties and state political parties, and non-party committees. That second amount was restricted in that no more than $46,200 could be given to a state party or a non-candidate committee.
The plaintiffs are Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican who was itching to donate $8,200 more than the two-year maximum, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The case is appropriately titled Shaun McCutcheon, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, and is expected to be decided during the Court’s next term.
To be sure, there’s no telling how the Court will rule. It will certainly make a decision on the two-year ceiling, but it may also abstract the issue and revisit contribution limits generally. This is because the rationale behind the constitutionality of these limits has been debilitated in the last 30 years, the most notable instance being the unprecedented 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
Below are the ’11-’12 election cycle contribution limits**, with the “biennial limit,” or two-year cap, in red.
For a compelling debate on the issue of money in politics, see here. For a summary and recorded oral arguments of Buckley v. Valeo, the ’76 decision upholding the constitutionality of contribution limits, see here. For the Citizens case, see here. For Knox v. SEIU, which decided on union money used for political contributions, see here.
|
Individual may give
|
To each candidate or candidate committee per election
|
To national party committee per calendar year
|
To state, district & local party committee per calendar year
|
To any other political committee per calendar year (1)
|
Special Limits
|
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
$117,000* overall biennial limit:
- $46,200* to all candidates
- $70,800* to all PACs & parties (2)
|
|
National Party Committee may give
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
$43,100* to Senate Candidates per campaign (3)
|
|
State, District & Local Party Committee
may give
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (multicandidate)(4) may give
|
$5,000
|
$15,000
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (not multicandidate) may give
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
Authorized Campaign Committee may give
|
$2,000 (5)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
**Chart available at www.FEC.gov
Tags: campaign contribution limits, Citizens United, FEC, money in politics, rnc, supreme court
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Court to Take Up Campaign Money…Again
Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 by Geoffrey Lyons
Meredith McGehee is the Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center and principal of McGehee Strategies. She has been named five times by The Hill as one of the top nonprofit/grassroots lobbyists in Washington. McGehee can be reached at mmcgehee@campaignlegalcenter.org
IT'S A TRUISM that Members of Congress greatly depend on lobbyists for campaign fundraising. This is because lobbyists can do more than just give direct contributions: they can solicit the support of the entire company, industry, or organization they represent.
Until recently, this was a relatively coherent process. Lobbyists would help channel money to the right PACs, give advice to executives on individual contributions, and aid in managing bundling efforts. All of this was done under the fundraising restrictions imposed by the FEC, such as the $2,500 limit for individual candidates.
But things are different now, and $2,500 looks like chump change.
After the Citizens United
and SpeechNow.org court decisions, meaningful limits are gone. Members of Congress are still turning to lobbyists for campaign funds, but now the “ask” is for $10 million instead of $10,000. The pressure to deliver this money will only grow as Democrats begin to fully embrace Super PACs, which they originally shunned.
Also burdening lobbyists is the rise of “dark money” groups that aren't required to disclose their donors. Members of Congress see these as excellent avenues to get funding from a company or industry that they’d rather not associate with publicly.
Lobbyists at the center of the Washington money game will therefore be spending more time than ever figuring out how to respond to Member’s demands for money. So too will they be occupied trying to decipher who is behind the funds pouring in against their clients.
For the lobbyists who believe more in their powers of persuasion than their ability to solicit contributions, now is the time to speak up and support the American Bar Association's proposal to detach lobbying from fundraising.
zp8497586rq
Tags: campaign legal center, Citizens United, FEC, fundraising, Lobbying, lobbyist, meredith mcgehee, Speechnow.org v FEC, Super PAC, Super PACs
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Meredith McGehee: Lobbyists Shouldn’t Let Lax Fundraising Rules Complicate Their Work
Friday, November 4th, 2011 by Vbhotla
The L.A. Times reported last week on a study that suggests that in this post-Citizens United world, companies are regulating their own spending in political campaigns. The study, conducted by the Center for Political Accountability and the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, evaluated companies based on board oversight of political giving, disclosure practices and company restrictions on political spending.
The study found that “voluntary disclosure of political spending is becoming a mainstream corporate practice, and [a] growing number of companies are putting restrictions on the political use of their money.” According to its research, 57 of the S&P 100 index companies voluntarily disclose their political spending and have adopted board oversight over spending. Just under half, 43, of the companies voluntarily disclose some of their independent spending through associations and nonprofits.
One in six do not allow funds to be spent directly on candidates or political committees. It also found two companies, Colgate-Palmolive and IBM, prohibit spending entirely. Nearly one-third (30) of companies “place some Levitra prohibitions on using corporate funds for political activity.”
“Our findings are striking. They offer hope for increasing corporate political transparency and accountability at a time when everyone expects massive hidden spending to influence elections,” CPA President Bruce Freed said in a statement.
Twenty-four of the companies have explicit statements on their websites letting Super PAC committees know that they will not spend on independent expenditures. The study ranked the top-ten companies based on political transparency:
- Colgate-Palmolive Co.
- Exelon Corp.
- International Business Machines
- Merck & Co. Inc.
- Johnson & Johnson
- Pfizer Inc.
- United Parcel Service Inc.
- Dell Inc.
- Wells Fargo & Co.
- EMC Corp.
In 2003, the Center for Political Accountability started a campaign to urge corporations to voluntarily disclose political spending and exercise greater oversight in this area. “Few, if any, companies disclosed their political spending then,” the report says, going on to note that the results of this study “[reflect] significant progress. [They] also [reflect] troubling gaps that leave many shareholders, and citizens, in the dark.”
Tags: Campaign Finance, Citizens United, colgate, colgate-palmolive, corporate spending in campaigns, Dell, EMC Corp, exelon, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., palmolive, Pfizer, UPS, Wells Fargo
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off on Study finds companies are independently limiting political spending
Monday, March 28th, 2011 by Vbhotla
Absent intervention into campaign finance reform by the judicial branch, those hoping to put limits on what has been referred to as a”floodgate” of campaign funding made possible by last year’s Citizens United ruling have sought help from the Federal Communications Commission.
Media Access Project senior vice president and policy director Andrew Schwartzman argued last week that the FCC has long had the power to require political groups to disclose donors when running political ads. In a petition filed March 22, he calls on the agency “to amend and strengthen its rules to require on-air identification of persons paying” ‘25% or more of the cost of an ad, according to the organization’s official press release.
Schwartzman said, “The FCC has repeatedly said that members of the public are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded, and it has stressed that this is especially important in the case of political messages. This petition simply seeks to update the FCC’s rules to fulfill its Congressional mandate.”
The petition points out what it believes to be “a fundamental policy…that ‘listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded.”
This effort by the Media Access Project is the latest attempt by campaign finance reformers seeking to narrow the reach of theCitizens United decision. Several attempts have been made to urge the Supreme Court to re-define the judgement’s implications, but the Court has declined to hear these appeals.
Tags: Campaign Finance, Campaign finance reform, Citizens United, FCC, media access project
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Finance Reformers Seek Regulatory Help
Monday, January 17th, 2011 by Vbhotla
The Wesleyan Media Project released two studies last week detailing its findings on campaign ads and spending. The group found that 2.8 million ads ran in the midterm campaign cycle, amassing over $1.4 billion in spending between January and November 2010. It also deemed the most recent campaign cycle the “most negative,” noting that 87.2% of ads run by independent expenditure groups, made more powerful by the Citizens United ruling, were negative, versus just over 37% of ads run by candidates’ campaign committees.
In the House, where significant Republican gains were projected, the group found that the number of ads by interest groups increased 168%, compared to just a 44% increase in Senate races. In the first study, the authors concluded “with the increase in competitive races in 2010, the volume of advertising rose too, as did its negativity.” They also mentioned that “Republicans [took] up some unusual themes, like health care and ‘change.’”
The second study, which analyzed the impact of the Citizens United ruling, found that “while interest groups were aggressive players in the air war, their impact may not have been as negative or as large as initially predicted.”
The group admonishes that “knowing what campaign themes brought [the 112th Congress] to power is an important prerequisite of holding government accountable.”
Tags: attack ads, Campaign Finance, Citizens United, independent expenditures group, mid-term elections
Posted in Campaign Finance, Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on 2010 Election Cycle “Most Negative”
Monday, January 3rd, 2011 by Vbhotla
Last year saw Executive Orders and court rulings and legislative movements and the passing of some of the profession’s most dearly-loved members. Here is a look back at the top headlines of 2010:
- Trials, convictions and releases – Kevin Ring was convicted on five counts of corruption November 15 and awaits sentencing, after a 2009 trial resulted in a hung jury. Paul Magliocchetti pleaded guilty in September to making illegal campaign contributions. The justice department is seeking a 57 month imprisonment for what prosecutors are calling “one of the largest criminal schemes in U.S. history to violate federal campaign finance laws.” Jack Abramoff, initially sentenced to six years for fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials, was released from federal prison in June, and his term at a work-release-like program at a Baltimore pizzeria ended in early December.
- Court rulings – In January, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission corporate funding of independent campaign ads could not be limited under the First Amendment. Many consider the March Speechnow ruling to be a follow-up to Citizens United; the spring case allowed for unlimited giving to “independent expenditures committees.” Both cases, however, upheld disclosure requirements while lifting spending restrictions.
- Legislative Bullying – Congress sought to “fix” the Citizens United ruling with the DISCLOSE Act, which would require organizations that back federal election campaigns to disclose the names of large donors, as well as list said donors in any campaign ads the organizations run, and ban foreign governments, government contractors, and TARP recipients from donating to campaigns. The act passed in the House in June, but failed in the lame duck session in the Senate. In addition, a proposed ban on earmarks failed in the Senate November 30.
- Executive Orders – In June, President Obama issued an order banning lobbyists from advisory boards of federal departments and agencies. It also banned all gifts from lobbyists to executive branch appointees, appointees-turned-lobbyists from lobbying the branch for the duration of his administration, and tightened revolving door policies.
- Deaths – Patti Jo Baber, executive director of the American League of Lobbyists, passed in December. She was described as the “backbone” of the organization and a prominent member of the lobbying community.
Tags: American League of Lobbyists, Citizens United, DISCLOSE Act, earmarks ban, Executive Order on lobbying, Jack Abramoff, Kevin Ring, Paul Magliocchetti, Revolving Door, Speechnow.org v FEC
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Top Headlines of 2010
Thursday, December 16th, 2010 by Vbhotla
Q: My company operates on a calendar year and is looking for places to unload corporate funds before the end of the tax period. Can we support the RNC under the Citizens United decision, as long as we disclose the donations with the FEC?
A: No. Contrary to media reports, the Supreme Court’s decision does NOT permit corporations to make contributions to specific candidates or parties. In addition to the traditionally-allowed PAC donations and issue ads, you are now allowed to independently support specific candidates or parties, by urging people to “vote for candidate Johnson” or “remember to support the Republican candidates,” which was not previously allowed.
Be diligent about state disclosure requirements, which have increased since the ruling, in what many view as an attempt to dissuade corporations from increasing political spending.
Tags: Citizens United, corporate donations, corporate spending
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off on Campaign Finance Q & A
Friday, November 19th, 2010 by Vbhotla
In this, the week of ethical trial decisions, proceedings did not fare well for the defendants.
- The trial of Kevin Ring, the only Abramoff associate to try his luck in court, came to an end Monday, when a jury found him guilty of five felony counts of corruption. Ring took eleven congressional aides and Bush administration officials down with him, along with nine others.
- Tom DeLay, the former Speaker of the House charged with money laundering and conspiracy, did not take the stand in his own defense before his attorney rested his case. Though the case is largely circumstantial, several witness testimonies have implicated DeLay as having been involved in, or at minimum knowledgeable about, the transactions. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday.
- Rep. Charles Rangle (D-NY) was found guilty of 11 charges, including improperly soliciting lobbying funds and failing to disclose income and assets.
- Though facing investigation, and not actually on trial, conservative backers of American Principles in Action received negative press for not disclosing funds spent on Latino outreach this past election. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is concerned that the group may have exploited the Citizens United decision beyond the Court’s initial intent.
Tags: American Principles in Action, Charles Rangel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethic in Washington, Citizens United, corruption, CREW, Jack Abramoff, Kevin Ring, Tom DeLay
Posted in Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off on Weekly News Round-Up
Thursday, November 11th, 2010 by Vbhotla
This election saw record campaign spending from outside groups. What changed to enable such astonishing third-party contributions?
- Citizens United – for the first time in over 60 years, unions and corporations were permitted to spend treasury funds on ads calling for the election or defeat of certain candidates. Prior to the ruling, these organizations were only permitted to advertise around particular issues, not in favor or opposition to particular candidates. Corporate executives can donate business funds to nonprofits to advertise on behalf of the corporation anonymously — without anyone ever knowing where the money originated — providing incentive for CEOs reluctant to have a company openly endorse candidates in the past.
- New FEC interpretation – The FEC has not required as much disclosure about advertising as it has in previous years, releasing a rule revision requiring only funds specifically donated for advertisements be disclosed. This made it possible for contributors to avoid disclosure by simply not specifying where their money should be spent. Half of the commissioners narrowed the margin for disclosure requirements even more, allowing funds to be designated for advertising and still avoid disclosure, as long as the contributors didn’t spe
 cify for which ad the money would be spent. This drastically decreases the donation disclosure.
- Super-PACs and the Speechnow aftermath – Citizens United opened the door for unlimited spending, which may have been the Pandora’s Box that led to the verdict in Speechnow.org v. FEC. Thanks to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (and the U.S. Supreme Court who later refused to hear the case to overturn the verdict), groups can now identify as “independent expenditure committees,” allowing unlimited contributions from unlimited sources, though they must register as PACs.
To recap: thanks to two anti-regulatory court rulings, now groups can receive unlimited contributions fro
m unlimited sources, then spend in unlimited amounts with fewer restrictions, as long as they continue to register with the FEC. The changing of the guard in the Capitol when the newly-elected Congressmen are seated should afford more changes, and less regulation, thanks to small-government favoring Republicans. Stay tuned!
Tags: campaign contributions, Campaign Finance, campaign finance limits, Citizens United, FEC, PACs, Speechnow.org v FEC, Super PACs
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off on Campaign Finance in 2010
Monday, November 8th, 2010 by Vbhotla
In what many are calling a follow-up to the Citizens United ruling, and a blow to campaign finance reform, the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the Speechnow.org vs. FEC case last week. Many are suggesting this broadens the reach of Citizens United and allows for increases freedom of speech in the electoral process.
The decision allows for unlimited donations to “independent expenditure groups” such as Speechnow.org, and challenges FEC regulation of campaign donations. While unlimited donations allows for greater spending on campaigns, it also maintained disclosure requirements, noting that continued registration and disclosure will be required.
Under the ruling, Speechnow and similar groups must register as a PAC and disclose contributions. As a result, over 50 such groups popped up around the country ahead of the mid-term elections, and this election cycle saw record spending. Watchdog group opensecrets.org noted that “significant investments from outside groups helped elect more than 200 federal candidates.”
Though both Democrats and Republicans received outside donations, it was Republicans who saw the greatest benefits of organizations’ ability to receive unlimited donations, and in turn, spend in unlimited proportions.
Tags: campaign donations, campaign finance limits, Campaign finance reform, Citizens United, Disclosure, FEC, Speechnow.org v FEC
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Supreme Court upholds PAC disclosure requirements
Monday, October 25th, 2010 by Vbhotla
The Federal Election Commission does not intend to publish a rulemaking on the Citizens United decision until after the November mid-terms, despite having had almost ten months to do so. Democrats have urged the FEC to utilize their rulemaking power to blunt what they see as overwhelming corporate money in federal elections.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) led the charge of 15 senators requesting greater regulation of foreign campaign contributions, penning a letter to the FEC saying “while Congress will need to act, the Commission must immediately do its part to protect our elections from foreign influence,” and calling for strengthened policies and less ambiguous interpretations of the ruling.
After the failure of this summer’s DISCLOSE Act in the Senate, campaign finance reformers are not seeing action on the controversial judicial decision in the immediate future. Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s campaign finance lobbyist, told Politico, “This is a low point for the campaign finance reform movement — I’ve never seen it lower.”
Indeed, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act has suffered tremendous blows at the hands of the Supreme Court and FEC regulation. The agency has said it will alter its enforcement to be in compliance with the ruling, but has failed to implement any actual policies to do so thus far. Lobbyists who manage PACs or contribute to federal campaigns should be aware of the massive amount of maneuvering going on behind the scenes with campaign finance reform and potential implementation.
Tags: Campaign Finance, Campaign finance reform, Citizens United, DISCLOSE Act, FEC
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Campaign finance reformers see a tough road ahead
Friday, August 13th, 2010 by Vbhotla
 As Norm Eisen departs for Prague, the White House announces his replacement: nobody. Well, technically, Bob Bauer will take over Eisen’s “portfolio” at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and Steven Croley will also join the ethics team. Article at the Washington Post. Also: the Sunlight Foundation doesn’t take kindly to the announcement, listing several ethics promises on which they have yet to see follow-through from the Obama Administration. CREW (which Eisen co-founded) is also not enthused.
Some lawyers think Paul Magliocchetti’s indictment may truly mark the end of the PMA pay-to-play scandal.
Federal Judge Ellen Huvelle refused to throw out charges against accused Jack Abramoff associate Kevin Ring this week. Ring’s attorneys had asked Huvelle to vacate the charges after the Supreme Court’s decisions in three recent cases diminished the power of the honest services fraud statute, one of the statutes under which Ring was charged.
Rep. Maxine Waters‘ ethics charges were revealed – and she plans to fight back. Most of the charge appears to focus on the actions of Rep. Waters’ chief of staff, Mikael Moore, in trying to secure federal funding for OneUnited Bank, an entity in which Rep. Waters’ husband held financial stake. This case, in which Waters is being reprimanded for the actions of her staff, bears some resemblance to Rep. Charlie Rangel’s getting in trouble for his staff’s knowledge about the infamous trip to the Caribbean.
Speaking of Charlie Rangel, if you haven’t seen the rambling 30-minute House floor speech that he gave earlier this week, it’s time for a little Friday afternoon work-break.
Are you a corporation planning to use the Citizens United case to spend massive amounts of money in federal elections? Let what happened to Target Corp. in Minnesota be a lesson to you.
GOP Reps. Mike Castle (Dela.) and Bob Platts (Pa.) have teamed up to offer more power to the Office of Congressional Ethics. A new bill by the two Congressmen, titled the Accountability and Transparency in Ethics Act, would give subpoena powers to the mostly investigative body. Read more at Roll Call, “Castle, Platts Propose Tougher Ethics Measures.”
Interesting little tid-bit from K Street Cafe: How and why does Congress use Twitter (video).
Quote(s) of the Week:
“With Mr. Eisen headed to Europe as an ambassador, his move from the White House ‘is the biggest lobbying success we’ve had all year,'” – Tony Podesta, Washington Post, Aug. 6
“Violations of campaign finance laws are clear cut and lend themselves to easy proof beyond a reasonable doubt… It sounds like this is both the beginning and possibly the end of the PMA matter in terms of prosecution.” – Jan Baran, on the Paul Magliocchetti indictment, Roll Call, Aug. 9
Tags: Bob Bauer, Citizens United, Jan Baran, K St. Cafe, Kevin Ring, Norm Eisen, Paul Magliocchetti, pma group, Rep. Bob Platts, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Mike Castle, Target Corp., Tony Podesta
Posted in Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off on Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up
Monday, June 21st, 2010 by Vbhotla
The DISCLOSE Act has encountered some difficulties navigating through the world of lobbying. Democrats, who have been pushing the legislation as a fix to January’s Citizen’s United Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, have amended their bill several times in the past weeks – leading to grumbles about the manner of passing the bill, and one postponement of the floor vote.
The National Rifle Association has successfully defended their desire to see a disclosure exemption for large organizations with a specific budget, number of members, and number of chapters. The problem for several advocacy groups which previously supported the bill seems to be that the exemption really only covers one organization – the NRA. This leads to charges of buddying up with the very special interest groups whom the bill purports to police.
Most legislators have not expressed a problem with the way the bill stands now – with the controversial NRA exemption. But it could be a problem for Speaker Pelosi’s attempt to pass the bill before July 4; and on Thursday, the floor vote on the legislation was pushed back a week.
Some public interest groups have expressed disappointment with some provisions of the bill but recognize that the overall legislative package helps to accomplish their stated desire for more accountability and disclosure.
A Politico story with full background is here.
Tags: Citizens United, DISCLOSE Act, NRA
Posted in Campaign Finance, Government Relations Alert, Lobbying News | Comments Off on DISCLOSE Drama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
