WASHINGTON DC — “In the first 17 days of August — not normally a time of major campaign activity — independent groups spent $2.4 million to promote or attack candidates in the midterm elections. The spenders included unions and well-established advocacy organizations.

But the numbers of smaller independent groups are growing. It’s a result of rulings by the Supreme Court, a federal appeals court and the Federal Election Commission — rulings that, taken together, allow corporations to funnel money into electoral politics while remaining anonymous. Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising, said Tuesday that groups with new ads going up included Americans for Prosperity, the Committee for Truth in Politics, the League of American Voters, the Small Business Action Committee and the Emergency Committee for Israel — “and that’s just in the last 12 hours.” Peter Overby, NPR.

Read the whole story

More on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON DC — “Massey Energy is one of two large West Virginia coal companies that plan to buy advertising in fall congressional elections, while taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling that would let them do so. Through a subsidiary, Massey owns the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia, the site of the worst mining disaster in four decades. Some observers believe Massey and International Coal Group (ICG) want to stop new rules for mine safety that Congress started drafting after the disaster, according to a Public News Service report.… The high court decision was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts directly on political advertising that is not coordinated with a candidate’s committee.” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story

More on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

St PAUL — “The corporate money has been flowing since the U.S. Supreme Court threw outparts of a 63-year-old law that prohibited companies and unions fromdonating to campaigns for or against candidates. The decision, whichcame earlier this year, changed rules in about half the states. But thechange is so new that experts don’t have a good handle on the likelyimpact nationally.

“This is the leading edge,” said Ed Bender, who heads the National Institute on Money in State Politics in Montana…. The Supreme Court ruling left in place state prohibitions against companies giving directly to the candidates. The money can go to independent groups supporting the candidates. But individuals can donate directly to the candidates’ campaigns.” Martiga Lohn, Associated Press.

Read the whole story

More on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON DC — “New reports are surfacing across the country of businesses and special interests working to exert more political influence in elections, following the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision. Judicial elections are among the targets…. A NPR report, meanwhile, recaps House-passed legislation that has stalled in the U.S. Senate to require disclosure of corporate and labor union spending to influence elections…. Citizens United changed the rules for corporation and labor unions, permitting them unlimited spending to influence elections through expenditures made independently of candidates’ campaigns.” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story

More on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON — “In the upcoming midterm elections, advocacy groups on both sides of the political fence “are expected to pour tens of millions of dollars into loosely regulated independent election expenditures,” according to a CQPolitics.com article.

One of the expected top spenders will be the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A Chamber vice president, Bruce Josten, said his group hopes to pull in as much as $75 million to spend on election operations in such states as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois.

While Democrats predict the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision will open the floodgates for spending by businesses and their coalitions, Josten said campaign spending disclosure legislation in Congress doesn’t make corporations happy.”  Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story

More info on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON DC — “A political compromise would exempt the National Rifle Association from legislation in Congress requiring  corporations to identify themselves in political ads they pay for, and to disclose their expenditures to shareholders and the public.

The proposed carve-out for the NRA led the U.S. Public Interest Research Group to withdraw support for the bill, which was moving closer to consideration in the full House of Representatives. Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, staked out opposition to the bill, the Associated Press reported.

The House bill and a Senate version were drafted to soften the impact of the Supreme Court’s January ruling in Citizens United.” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story

More on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON DC — President Barack Obama set his sights on the blockbuster Citizens United decision in his Saturday radio and Internet address. The president decried it as a potent weapon for special interests, warned of ‘a potential corporate takeover of our elections,’ according to a New York Times article, and urged Congress to respond with bipartisan legislation. The Supreme Court struck down prohibitions on corporate spending for elections and opened the door to unlimited election spending by special interests. The ruling deals ‘a huge blow to our efforts to rein in this undue influence,’ a Washington Post article quoted Obama,” Peter Hardin, GavelGrab.

Read the whole story