Sunday, February 28th, 2010
Mark Niquette, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 2/28/10. COLUMBUS — Gov. Ted Strickland took 25 trips out of state last year and this year so far to raise campaign cash for the Ohio Democratic Party and his re-election bid, but Republican challenger John Kasich isn’t taking issue with it.
That may be because Kasich has had three events out of state to raise money himself.
Strickland reported that $1.2 million, or 22 percent of the total he raised last year and through January, came from outside Ohio. That compares with nearly $798,000, or 16 percent, for Kasich, according to campaign finance reports.
Experts say it’s not unusual for candidates to raise money from out of state, especially in a battleground such as Ohio that has played an important role in recent presidential elections. They say voters will decide what’s excessive.
But the staggering amount of money it takes to run requires that candidates spend significant time away from official duties or campaigns to raise funds, said Catherine Turcer, director of Ohio Citizen Action’s Money in Politics Project. Read More
Friday, February 26th, 2010
Bara Vaida, NATIONAL JOURNAL, 2/24/10. WASHINGTON DC — Shareholder and advocacy groups launched a letter-writing campaign Wednesday seeking corporate disclosure of all political contributions made with company funds in response to the Supreme Court’s January decision enabling unlimited business spending on elections.
The Court’s decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission “is likely to put companies under immense pressure to use shareholder funds to support candidates, groups and causes whose positions and activities could threaten a company’s reputation, bottom line and shareholder value,” wrote about 50 groups in a letter sent to the chairs of 427 publicly-traded companies.
Disclosure, the groups say, could help companies resist that pressure. The organizations also urged corporations to adopt a policy requiring their boards to approve and review all political donations to candidates. Read More
Friday, February 26th, 2010
Peter Hardin, GAVEL GRAB, 2/25/10. WASHINGTON DC — Sen. Chris Dodd introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to effectively nullify the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, but the odds for passing any constitutional amendment are not great.
Not since 1992 has the Constitution been amended, according to a Hartford Courant article. It takes a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, to amend the Constitution.
“I am a firm believer in the sanctity of the First Amendment, and I believe we must continue to do all we can to protect the free speech rights of the American people. But I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,” Dodd said in a statement. Read More
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Eric Zimmermann, THE HILL, 2/24/10. WASHINGTON DC — Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced a constitutional amendment today to overrule a recent Supreme Court decision on campaign spending.
The court ruled 5-4 last month in Citizens United v. FEC that Congress cannot regulate independent expenditures by corporations and possibly labor unions. The ruling could dramatically increase third party spending on elections.
Dodd’s amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) would explicitly grant Congress the authority to regulate campaign fundraising and expenditures for federal elections.
The amendment would also let states regular such activity in their own elections.
“I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that money is speech, and that corporations should be treated the same as individual Americans when it comes to protected, fundamental speech rights,” Dodd said in a statement.
Dodd and Udall said they will also support “interim legislative efforts” to damper the impact of the ruling, including requirements that corporations disclose their campaign spending.
To pass, Dodd’s amendment must pass both Houses with a two-thirds majority and be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Mark Niquette, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 2/25/10. COLUMBUS — Responding to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing corporate expenditures for political campaigns, Ohio’s chief elections officer wants new requirements in state law governing such spending.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is asking the legislature to add an amendment to a pending elections bill that would require corporations to disclose all independent political expenditures.
“Obviously, we can’t change the Supreme Court’s decision, but we can make sure that we provide for transparency and accountability,” Brunner said at a news conference yesterday to announce her proposal.
The court ruled that corporations and other entities cannot contribute directly to candidates but have the constitutional right to spend money for or against a candidate, as long as the effort is not coordinated with a campaign.
Ohio law says that no corporation, nonprofit corporation or labor organization can spend its money for or against a political party, candidate or “for any partisan political purpose.” Experts have said the court’s ruling makes the state law practically unenforceable. Read More
News Feed