Home > Newsroom
NEWSROOM
Press Releases
House committee takes up shareholder regulations
July 28, 2010
The House Financial Services Committee is considering a bill to restrict the political speech of companies in an attempt to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The shareholder regulation bill, H.R. 4790, would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require an authorization of a majority of shareholders before a public company may make political expenditures. A manager's amendment, which was not publicly available before today's hearing, was introduced to make "corrections" to the bill, said Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.), the bill's sponsor.
"Instead of empowering shareholders, this bill would thwart the ability of companies to engage in political spending to further the economic interests of shareholders," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman. "Restricting political decisions to one vote a year would obliterate the First Amendment right of shareholders to advocate for policies that affect legitimate business interests."
Rather than advancing a less restrictive proposal to allow a majority of shareholders to affirmatively decide to abstain from political spending, this proposal would force all companies to wade through a cumbersome layer of regulation simply to speak out on issues and candidates that may impact their bottom lines.
"This bill addresses a nonexistent problem by unconstitutionally curbing the speech of business groups," said Center for Competitive Politics President Sean Parnell. "For decades, Congress has placed similar campaign finance regulations on business and unions. This law would depart from that standard and only restrict corporations."
DISCLOSE Act blocked in Senate
July 27, 2010
In a key victory for supporters of free political speech, the DISCLOSE Act failed on a procedural vote today.
Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked cloture on the bill designed to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, but the legislation stalled on a party-line vote.
"This bill wasn't about disclosure, it was an attempt by the majority to legislate an electoral advantage fewer than 100 days before the midterm elections," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC Chairman. "Senators who support free speech in politics must remain vigilant to make sure these campaign finance restrictions aren't pushed through on a later vote or in a lame duck session."
SpeechNow.org seeks cert on campaign finance case
July 23, 2010
Groups of Ordinary Americans Seek to Speak As Freely as Corporations and Unions
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—In the next landmark case challenging campaign finance restrictions after the historic Citizens United decision, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case challenging federal laws that impose enormous burdens on grassroots groups that simply want to speak out in elections.
SpeechNow.org is a group of citizens who want to defend free speech at the ballot box by running ads that oppose candidates who do not support First Amendment rights. But under federal law, if the group spends more than a small amount of money on ads that call for the election or defeat of political candidates, it must register with the government as a political action committee or "PAC" and be subject to a host of burdensome regulations before speaking.
SpeechNow.org, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), filed its lawsuit in February 2008, arguing that the campaign finance laws that apply to PACs could not constitutionally apply to a group that simply engages in independent political speech-speech that is not coordinated with any political candidates. After more than two years of litigation, in March 2010, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, nine-judge decision holding that SpeechNow.org could accept unlimited donations to fund its political ads. Unfortunately, the court also held that if SpeechNow.org chose to speak out it would have to register with the government as a PAC.
New version of DISCLOSE Act introduced in Senate
July 22, 2010
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced a new version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill to subvert the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"The cosmetic surgery Sen. Schumer has performed on the DISCLOSE Act has it looking just as ugly," said Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission Chairman. "It contains the same backroom deals for labor unions and large interests such as the National Rifle Association. Senators should filibuster this modern day Sedition Act."
This bill has been placed on the Senate Calendar and, according to Capitol Hill sources, majority Democrats will try to rush this legislation through without hearings or meaningful debate. DISCLOSE could be on the Senate floor as soon as next week.
"The American people deserve hearings and robust debate on a 116-page bill designed to rewrite campaign finance laws in the midst of a midterm campaign," said CCP President Sean Parnell. "This effort to ram a bill of speech prohibitions and regulations through under the banner of disclosure is disingenuous and tramples on the plain meaning of the First Amendment."
Go to press release archive
In The News07.28.10 07.28.10 07.28.10 |
