State legislators across the nation are introducing campaign finance legislation to mitigate the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions may now directly and expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office.

Recently, attention has focused on the DISCLOSE Act (the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act), federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to blunt the impacts of the Citizens United decision. The DISCLOSE Act would create new, rigorous campaign finance disclosure requirements meant to prevent moneyed interests from drowning out the voices of citizens and smaller advocacy organizations.

States have also come up with various pieces of legislation to minimize the impact of the Citizens United decision. Here are some examples:

Colorado

In Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed legislation (S.B. 203) in May mandating new campaign finance disclosure requirements. The bill requires corporations and labor unions that make independent election expenditures exceeding $1,000 to register with the state.

The law also prohibits foreign corporations from making independent expenditures on elections. "Prior Colorado law was silent on foreign corporations because all corporations in the state were barred from making independent expenditures," according to BNA (subscription required). The Citizens United decision does not prevent localities from instituting bans on donations from foreign corporations.

The law also requires that election-related communications must disclose the person or entity that paid for the communication. "The new state law also requires that persons who accept donations for independent expenditures maintain such funds in a separate bank account. It requires the Colorado secretary of state to post information relating to independent expenditures on its web site," according to BNA.

Nonprofit leaders are applauding the efforts in Colorado. Colorado Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro told BNA that the legislation is a "worthwhile improvement to Colorado law" but "there is more that can and should be done in future legislative sessions to improve Colorado's campaign finance laws, including even stronger disclosure requirements and a voluntary public financing system for state campaigns."

Michigan

There are also legislative efforts in Michigan to diminish the impact of the Citizens United decision. Michigan Common Cause, which was instrumental in crafting parts of the legislation authored by six state House Democrats, told Michigan Live that the bills would:

• Require that corporations that make independent campaign expenditures disclose the names and addresses of their top five contributors.
• Require that printed communications, TV, and Internet ads include a disclaimer stating they were paid for with corporate funds, as well as the name and photo of the president of the corporation. Radio ads must include a disclaimer read by the president of the corporation.
• Require that corporations receive consent from their shareholders and notify them at least 30 days before making independent campaign expenditures.
• Ban the following groups from making independent campaign expenditures: corporations that receive state grants, tax credits, or incentives; corporations that apply for, submit a bid for, or obtain a state contract; corporations that have accepted federal bailout money; semi-public corporations, including utility and insurance companies.
• Prohibit foreign and foreign-controlled corporations from making independent campaign expenditures.
• Ban the funneling of corporations' independent campaign expenditures through other sources, including individuals and businesses.
• Penalize shareholders, officers, or members of a corporation who knowingly consent to an independent expenditure that violates the Michigan Campaign Finance Act with a civil fine of as much as $1,000.

Michigan officials understand the challenges that they face in getting the legislation passed. Rep. Tim Bledsoe (D-Grosse Pointe), a former political science professor and the author of one of the pieces of legislation, told Michigan Live that he believes "it will be a huge challenge to get this legislation passed. When you are talking about substantial campaign finance reform legislation, it is usually a multi-year struggle."

There are others in Michigan who do not believe that Citizens United will have the impact that many fear. Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network told the Detroit Free Press that he doubts that major corporations "would risk alienating customers to advocate one candidate" when they can funnel money into issue ads that praise or critique the candidate without telling the audience which candidate to vote for. "They're not going to start doing express advocacy because they are able to eviscerate a candidate figuratively with issue ads," Robinson said.

New Hampshire

In New Hampshire, state Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) sponsored legislation (HB 1459) that would require businesses and nonprofits other than charities to register with the state if they spend $10,000 during an election cycle on advertisements that identify a candidate or evaluate a ballot item, according to the Concord Monitor.

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) asserts that the legislation requires "corporations, partnerships, and non-profits to register with the Secretary of State's office within 48 hours of launching a political advertisement – regardless of whether the advocacy is political or issue-based in nature." CCP further states that, "In its original form, the bill would have required non-profits to disclose their donors and corporations to disclose the maximum amount that the corporation would spend on political activity."

The bill was later modified by a New Hampshire House-Senate Committee of Conference. As part of the negotiation, legislators agreed "to drop a proposal requiring groups to identify donors who had given $10,000 toward political advertising. They decided that corporate shareholders would not be required to approve spending for political advertisements and that directors of organizations would not be required to report a maximum budget for the spending. They also exempted nonprofit charitable organizations, eliminated a small filing fee for affected groups and lowered the penalty for violations to $250 from $1,000," according to the Concord Monitor.

Both Republican and Democratic legislators have spoken out against the legislation. Conservative and liberal groups have spoken out against it, as well. CCP referred to the legislation as "an attempt by the New Hampshire legislature to stifle political speech." The New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits (NHCN) believes that the legislation will negatively impact nonprofits. "The amendment appears to be unconstitutional. It would curtail 1st Amendment free speech rights, free association rights, and privacy rights for nonprofits," according to NHCN.

Hassan and supporters of the legislation argue that "disclosure requirements are necessary to prevent corporations from unleashing unlimited and anonymous ads in order to sway New Hampshire elections," according to New Hampshire Watchdog.

"We're not saying they don't have a right to advocate. We're just saying we want to know who's behind the advocacy. If out-of-state or even foreign companies want spend a lot of money to influence New Hampshire elections, we want the voting public to know who they are," Hassan told the Union Leader.

More Efforts Likely

As the fight over the DISCLOSE Act heats up on the federal level and state and federal candidates begin to endure the ramifications of Citizens United, more state-level efforts to blunt the decision’s impacts are likely. As in Colorado, Michigan, and New Hampshire, these legislative measures will have to strike a tricky constitutional balance if they are to survive brutal legislative and courtroom fights.

Nonprofit advocacy could play a key role in all of these legislative approaches, and many in the sector are calling on organizations to keep a close eye on any proposed legislation to make sure that it works to diminish the potential damage that a flood of corporate money could do to our democracy while preserving the First Amendment rights of nonprofits and the people they serve.