WASHINGTON — The House is poised to vote today on a sweeping campaign-finance reform measure to blunt corporate spending in advance of this year’s congressional races.
The bill would require advocacy groups that purchase campaign advertising to disclose previously confidential information about donors and finances. It was fashioned in response to a pivotal Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that erased limits on corporate and union spending on political spots.
That ruling by the court’s five-member conservative majority, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, has been targeted by Democrats ever since and promises to be a central theme of next week’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
Democrats say that if the bill known in the House as the DISCLOSE Act becomes law, contributors will no longer be able to hide behind political front groups, which now, as a result of the Citizens United ruling, can bombard the airwaves with advertisements up until Election Day. Opponents contend the act infringes on free-speech rights.
But the act has also faced criticism from liberal groups, who intensely dislike the horse-trading that has taken place to put the bill in a position to pass the House. The bill’s sponsors, who include Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the head of the Democratic House re-election effort, last week inserted an exception to the disclosure requirements that largely would benefit one all-powerful Washington lobby: the National Rifle Association.
The exemption for large, established, national groups neutralized a potential NRA attack, which would have had moderate and so-called Blue Dog Democrats running for cover.
“The NRA’s opposition would have killed the bill,” said a House leadership aide.
Other groups, such as the Sierra Club and the seniors group AARP, would also benefit from the exemption, but they lack the influence on the Hill the NRA carries.
The special-interest exemption doesn’t sit well with groups such as the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, which opposes corporate influence in elections.
“We continue to really like the heart of the bill, but want to see the carve-out stripped out,” said U.S. PIRG’s Lisa Gilbert. She called the exemption “ironic.”
Resistance from both the left and right to the bill had Van Hollen and the White House still scrambling to line up votes Wednesday.
