In response to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opinion announced on Jan. 21, many nonprofits and political leaders are mobilizing to address the impact of the decision. Nonprofits, in particular, are taking the lead in ensuring that the voices of ordinary Americans are not diminished by an influx of corporate money into electoral politics.

In the highly anticipated opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a long-standing precedent, which had stated that corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign-related advertisements. Justices also struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill, which prohibited unions and corporations from running issue ads before primary and general elections.

The Court determined that current campaign finance regulations on corporate spending violate the First Amendment protection of political speech. The opinion applies only to independent expenditures and leaves in place a prohibition on direct corporate contributions to candidates and national party committees. It also upholds disclosure requirements for organizations that conduct advertising campaigns that promote or oppose candidates. More details about the decision are available in this issue of The Watcher.

The following examples illustrate the scope of the nonprofit community's response to the Citizens United opinion:

• Following the announcement of the Court's opinion, People for the American Way (PFAW) launched an action alert to diminish the impact of the decision. PFAW's action alert is an electronic petition urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment granting Congress the authority to limit corporate influence in electoral politics.
• Common Cause also initiated a campaign for a constitutional amendment. The group hosted an online presentation on Jan. 26 that outlined the efforts that it plans to undertake to push for a constitutional fix.
• The Alliance for Justice (AFJ) held a conference call on Jan. 25, where it discussed the impact of the decision, its effect, and its implications. In a fact sheet, AFJ posed questions concerning the case's implications. The organization also stressed why it is important for nonprofits to be involved in political advocacy. "Even if you think the case was wrongly decided, 501(c)(4)s and other nonprofit corporations (except for 501(c)(3)s) should take advantage of it – use it to strengthen democracy by increasing your public communications about the candidates and what’s best for the future of our country," said AFJ.
• Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America and a project of the Democratic National Committee, has circulated an electronic letter to members in its database and visitors to its website, asking them to send the electronic letter to their congressional representatives to inform the representatives that the American people support fair elections and limits on corporate spending.
• To further explore nonprofit reactions to the decision, OMB Watch and the Hudson Institute will host a panel discussion on February 16, entitled “Nonprofits Divided About Citizens United?” The panel will examine the ruling and the varying approaches used to either counter the effects or capitalize on opportunities it presents.

Nonprofits have also been using the decision as a springboard to address other issues related to nonprofit advocacy. For example, a coalition of nonprofit organizations that engage in public policy advocacy, including OMB Watch, is seeking to ease restrictions on nonprofit lobbyists in the wake of Citizens United. The organizations sent a joint letter to President Obama addressing their concerns. "The solution [as it relates to lobbying and ethics reform] should focus on issues like campaign finance reform and the disproportionate influence that large financial interests have over our nation’s politics and public policies. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC has increased the urgency of such actions," said the organizations.

On the legislative side, there has also been interest in addressing the influence of money in politics. Even before Citizens United was decided, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. John Larson (D-CT) introduced the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826), which attempts to limit the impact of corporate funds on elections by offering a public financing alternative. "The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want," according to Public Campaign, a campaign finance reform organization.

After the Citizens United opinion was announced, Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) introduced a constitutional amendment that would prohibit corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds in connection with a federal election campaign. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, also said he would "hold hearings to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections," according to The Hill.

In a statement following the Supreme Court's decision, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "We will review the decision, work with the Obama Administration, and explore legislative options available to mitigate the impact of this disappointing decision." Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the House would also take measures similar to the Senate to limit corporate spending, according to The Hill.

The House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance law, will hold a hearing in February in response to the Citizens United ruling. House Administration Committee Chairman Robert Brady (D-PA) "indicated he would be working with fellow lawmakers and the Obama administration to shape new legislation in time to affect this year's congressional campaigns, but he provided no details about what such a measure would provide," according to BNA (subscription required).