A campaign finance bill that many pro-family groups say would limit their ability to get their message out and possibly lead to the intimidation of donors was blocked in the Senate July 27 when Democrats failed to get any Republicans to support it.
The White House-backed DISCLOSE Act needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster but got only 57, although it technically was only one vote short. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I.-Conn., was absent and said he would have voted "yes," and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D.-Nev., switched his vote to "no" at the last minute in a procedural tactic that will allow him to bring the bill up again. All 40 Republicans who were present voted against it, with one Republican -- Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev. -- being absent. A similar version of the bill had passed the House, 219-206.
A host of pro-life and pro-family groups opposed it, including Family Research Council Action, National Right to Life, Focus on the Family's Citizenlink and the National Organization for Marriage. On the left side of the spectrum, the Americans Civil Liberties Union also was opposed. The bill would apply not only to nonprofits but also to corporations, and its supporters said it was intended to shine more light on campaign ad spending.
If passed and signed by President Obama, it would have gone into effect this year, impacting this election cycle. The day before the vote, Obama urged its passage, saying it was needed to limit the power of "shadow groups" who buy millions of dollars of ads and hide behind names such as "Citizens for a Better Future" even if, he said, "a more accurate name" would be "Companies for Weaker Oversight."
"A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections," Obama said. "It is damaging to our democracy."
But Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action, called the filibuster a "victory for free speech."
"Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums," McClusky said in a statement.
The bill's restrictions would kick in when an ad mentions a candidate or a member of Congress. Such restrictions could severely hamper nonprofit-issued advocacy ads that, for example, promote or oppose a specific bill and urge viewers to contact their legislator.
National Right to Life sent a letter to senators July 23 detailing what it sees as the bill's problems. Among them:
-- The bill's requirement to release publicly every donor who gives more than $1,000. "Our members and supporters have a right to support our public advocacy about important and controversial issues without having their identifying information posted on the Internet, exposing them to harassment or retribution by those who may disagree with their belief," National Right to Life said. Said FRC Action, "We have seen intimidation employed time and time again against Christians in states like Massachusetts, California and Maine for merely voicing their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman."
-- Its requirement that the top donor actually appear in the television ad, similar to how candidates do today. Radio ads would be subject to similar restrictions. National Right to Life said it is wrong for the government to require, for instance, a "75-year-old woman with health problems, who holds strong religious convictions and who wishes to promote" a pro-life bill to appear in a TV ad.
-- Its exemption of large organizations such as the National Rifle Association. While the NRA and organizations like it would be exempt, small nonprofits -- such as state-level pro-life groups -- would not be. National Right to Life asked why "much smaller state-level organizations" that have far fewer "financial, administrative, and legal resources" would be required to go through legal traps and layers of reporting requirements when larger organizations are not.
-- The fact that it would apply 120 days prior to a general election, twice as much as is the case now. "For example," National Right to Life wrote, "an organization that sponsors a single radio ad costing $10,000 or more that says no more than, 'Call Senator Jones -- urge him to support the First Amendment by voting no on S. 3628' -- would be required to publicly identify every donor of more than $1,000 to the organization (whether or not the donation was spent on the ad) throughout the year."
The bill is S. 3628 in the Senate, H.R. 5175 in the House.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Date Published: July 28, 2010
