Dear Mr. :
Thank you for taking the time to contact me about campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturns long-standing campaign finance laws and prohibits the government from banning political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The Court’s 5-4 decision held unconstitutional parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), (sometimes referred to as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law). It also overturned two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law’s restriction on campaign spending by corporations and unions.
According to the Court’s majority, restricting corporations from directly participating in elections violates the right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. By holding that corporations have the same constitutional right to free speech as individuals, this ruling represents a fundamental doctrinal shift. Although the full extent of the ruling’s impact is not yet known, this is a significant decision that many believe could reshape the political landscape by increasing the power of corporate special interests and the role of money in politics. Those with the deepest pockets, such as Wall Street, Big Oil and insurance companies, may have a greater influence in future elections.
President Obama, some Members of Congress and legal scholars have criticized the ruling as overreaching and setting a dangerous precedent. Others believe the ruling accurately interprets the First Amendment. I strongly believe that our democracy hinges on fair and transparent elections, and I will continue to advocate for limiting the influence of corporate special interests in politics.
In response to the Citizens United decision, S. 3295, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act was introduced in the Senate on April 30, 2010. The DISCLOSE Act, of which I was a cosponsor, would place controls on the flood of special interest money in elections by requiring new disclaimers on all television advertisements that are funded by special interests, including an appearance by the CEO of the corporation running the ad. It would also prevent government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of TARP from spending money on elections. Moreover, the DISCLOSE Act would close loopholes and prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited amounts of money through their US-based subsidiaries and require all corporations and advocacy groups that make political expenditures to establish easy-to-track campaign accounts.
On both July 27 and September 23, a revised version of the bill, S. 3628, came before the full Senate for consideration. In both instances, I joined many of my colleagues in voting to proceed with consideration, but the measure did not garner the necessary 60 votes. In order for this legislation to be considered by the full Senate, it must be reintroduced in the 112th Congress, which began on January 5, 2011. As always, I appreciate your views, thoughts and concerns as they assist me in understanding what is important to the people of Pennsylvania.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.
If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site,
http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator