Reactions to Citizens United Persist

The American Constitution Society (ACS) hosted an event to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Five panelists assessed the prospects for congressional legislation. Not surprisingly, their opinions diverged on the ruling's long-term impact. There are numerous practical and constitutional issues involved in passing any of the bills introduced and it is doubtful whether or not legislators would even be able to agree on any of the proposals.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), Jan Baran, an attorney who represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that "legislative proposals now being discussed come from congressional leaders who are clear in their intent to simply limit the scope of campaign spending that the Supreme Court has now said is constitutionally protected." James Portnoy, an attorney for Kraft Foods, said that he had "great skepticism" that any campaign finance reform legislation would be passed.

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has introduced a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling, with Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) joining as a cosponsor. This is the third proposed constitutional amendment in response to Citizens United. According to Dodd's press release, the amendment "would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level." Any constitutional amendment is a long shot, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states.

On the state level, the National Conference of State Legislatures details that there are at least 23 states that currently prohibit or restrict corporate and union spending on candidate elections. Many states will now move forward to change these laws, and if not, there will likely be legal challenges. For example, in Minnesota it is illegal for corporations to try to influence elections by funding campaigns to defeat or endorse candidates. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is suing to make Minnesota's laws in sync with the Court decision.

USA Today reports that states nationwide "are rushing to rewrite campaign-finance laws." Bills offered in Iowa and Maryland are moving forward to require shareholder approval of political spending and to force public disclosure of corporate spending in state elections.

For more information on legislation in response to Citizens United, read this article from the latest Watcher.

back to Blog