The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is running ads in newspapers opposing the DISCLOSE Act, the speech-stifling bill that the so-called campaign finance reform community has latched onto as the antidote for Citizens United, which freed business corporations, unions, and nonprofit groups to speak out in elections. The bill’s primary sponsor in the House, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, is not amused.
The Hill reported that Van Hollen staffer Doug Thornell called out the Chamber today: “The Chamber should step forward and disclose who funded this piece. What do they have to hide?”
One answer would probably be “no more than the NRA or the Sierra Club have to hide,” but I’ve been told that such comments aren’t really appreciated by the campaign finance “reform” community these days. No sense of humor or irony, apparently.
Apparently not much in the way of reading comprehension or commitment to accuracy either, judging by Thornell’s other comments.
“Let’s be clear, the Disclose Act does nothing to limit free speech,” [Thornell] said…
Mr. Thornell seems to be unfamiliar with the actual legislation being considered, which contains two explicit and absolute bans on the political speech of for-profit corporations if they receive government contracts above a specified threshold or have foreign investment of as little as 20 percent.
The ban on corporations receiving government contracts is the most far-reaching ban on free speech contained in the DISCLOSE Act. Subject to revision after the next round of backroom deals with favored interest groups, approximately 5,200 corporations would be banned not just from running ads calling for the defeat or election of a federal candidate, but from running an ad that even mentions a federal candidate (because of stricter regulations defining independent expenditures and coordination). The Senate bill is even more draconian and would ban such speech by more than 81,000 companies, according to information available at the web site USASpending.gov.
If the House or the Senate speech ban as currently written or something in between were to finally be adopted, that’s between 5,200 and 81,000 companies across the country that won’t even be allowed to ask local residents to call their Member of Congress about a bill that the company believes will create or destroy local jobs. These are ads that were legal before Citizens United that Congressman Van Hollen is urging be stripped of their free speech rights.
It’s understandable that the “reformers” who are cutting special deals behind closed doors with the very interest groups that they claim the DISCLOSE Act will limit the influence of are trying to change the subject, and instead talk about the Chamber of Commerce and its willingness to stand up for their members First Amendment rights. Less understandable is how Congressman Van Hollen’s office can promote such blatantly false statements, such as the claim that “the Disclose Act does nothing to limit free speech.”
10:34 p.m.; Brad’s Thoughts: Excellent points by Sean. I just wanted added one thought: am I the only one who finds Van Hollen unintentionally humorous when he says, “”The Chamber should step forward and disclose who funded this piece.” Hey, Chris, the Chamber funded this piece! You just said so. I mean really, is there anybody who needs to know more than that?
We often talk here at CCP about how the purpose of disclosure is to allow citizens to monitor government, not to allow government to monitor citizens. We realize that disentangling the two is often difficult. But this is a perfect example of what we mean. Nobody with half a brain doesn’t understand that the Chamber represents business, and is disproportionately funded by larger companies (just as Representative Van Hollen’s campaigns are disproportionately funded by larger contributors). To the extent it needs any information, the public has the information it needs to evaluate the source of the criticism. The only real reason a congressman needs to know more than that the Chamber funded this ad is to try to intimidate, threaten, and bully particular corporations.
But of course, threatening and bullying speakers into silence - in this case, speakers Van Hollen perceives as pro-Republican – is the goal of DISCLOSE, a shameful act of cynicism and power politics that discredits Rep. Van Hollen and all its supporters. – BAS
