Piers Morgan Rips Into Taylor Lorenz as She Giggles About Healthcare CEO's Death
We Know Who Was Feeding Parts of the Matt Gaetz Ethics Report to...
Trump Should Consider Pulling His Surgeon General Nominee
Not Even Swimsuit Models Can Stop NFL Players' Homes From Being Robbed
We Are Running Out the Clock on the Tyranny of Wokeness
Your Tax Dollars Not at Work
The Right Reform At The Right Time: Kash Patel’s Historic Opportunity To Rebuild...
Can the Nation Wait Until Jan. 20?
Trumpism Is Going Global
As Lawmakers Demand Answers About NJ Drone Activity, GOP Rep Shares Unsettling Story
Pretending There's No Cost in Biden's Mass Importation
What's Going On With Black and Hispanic Women?
Who Will Protect Syrian Christians?
Can We Fix Our Defective Universities?
Trump’s Pardons Can Extend to Elector Cases, Too
Tipsheet

So Much For Citizens United

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold Act in the Citizens United vs. FEC case. That ruling did away with campaign spending limits for unions and corporations, a move that was welcomed by many Republicans but scorned by many Democrats.
Advertisement


Those Democrats are now trying to re-impose the restrictions that were imposed by the Supreme Court -- but only on corporations, and not on unions or government contractors. It's called the DISCLOSE Act, and it's coming up for a vote as early as Friday.

As the Heritage Foundation notes, one single union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, "plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund 'a massive incumbent protection program.'" Under the Democrats bill, those are the kinds of people who will be allowed to spend whatever they please on campaigns, while private businesses will be restricted. Republicans have tried to introduce amendments to make the bill more equitable -- I'm kind of curious why they did this since it simply needs to be scrapped all together -- but those Amendments were voted down on party lines.

A group of former FEC officials opined other follies of the bill in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial:

For example, while the Disclose Act prohibits any corporation with a federal contract of $50,000 or more from making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, no such prohibition applies to unions. This $50,000 trigger is so low it would exclude thousands of corporations from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions negotiate directly with the government for benefits many times the value of contracts that would trigger the corporate ban.
Advertisement
If the bill goes through, it will almost certainly face another challenge in the Supreme Court -- the only question is "when." Will it be in time for the 2010 cycle? No matter what the result, it speaks volumes that Democrats think this type of legislation is a good idea.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement