A group that fights for campaign finance disclosures formally filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday, claiming that the “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney is illegally showing an ad from the candidate’s 2008 run for president.
That’s what we did. In 2010, Murray Hill Inc. became the first corporation in U.S. history to run for Congress. We thought it wouldn’t be long before Exxon, Google and Philip Morris followed our example and started takeover proceedings against the U.S. Congress.
If enacted, the tax proposals Mitt Romney outlined last week to the Detroit Economic Club would provide multimillion-dollar benefits to a newly powerful constituency: the rich men and women who are bankrolling “super PACs.”
In the Citizens United Case in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled corporations and unions have a constitutional right to spend unlimited money on political ads. State courts are expected to follow that principle. But in December, Montana’s high court refused to go along. It argued Montana’s history and demography make it different enough to deserve an exemption from the federal ruling.
Big money is infecting our politics more than ever, but when the money is coming from public corporations, there is at least a way to contain the damage: Force disclosure through shareholder advocacy.
Super PACs have been the subject of intense scrutiny this campaign season, particularly regarding the sources of their funding. Many of these groups recently filed the second round of campaign finance disclosures with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). What have we learned after two rounds of disclosure? Nothing much of interest.
DENVER (Legal Newsline) – The Colorado Supreme Court last week ruled that state law permits some political groups to spend unlimited funds in support of state candidates — as long as they avoid certain “magic words.”