Stay connected:
Submitted: May 19, 2010 - 8:05am
Last updated: May 19, 2010 - 8:06am
Last updated: May 19, 2010 - 8:06am
Source:
Wall Street Journal
Authors:
Bradley Smith Darryl Wold David Mason Hans von Spakovsky Joan Aikens Lee Ann Elliott Michael Toner Thomas Josefiak
[Commentary] As former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission with almost 75 years of combined experience, we believe that the bill proposed on April 30 by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to "blunt" the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is unnecessary, partially duplicative of existing law, and severely burdensome to the right to engage in political speech and advocacy. Moreover, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, or Disclose Act, abandons the longstanding policy of treating unions and businesses equally, suggesting partisan motives that undermine respect for campaign finance laws.
Links to Sources
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related
- DISCLOSE Act Draws Attention
- Two Democrats' remedy for the high court's campaign finance ruling
- A Welcome, if Partial, Fix
- Democrats plan to introduce bill to blunt ruling on political spending
- Democrats rush to curb corporate election spending before Nov. vote
- Democrats push to stem corporate campaign money
- Democrats Balk At Return Of Fairness Doctrine
- Schumer files new version of campaign-finance bill to court centrist votes
- Kerry Calls For Constitutional Amendment To Reverse Supremes
- Campaign Legal Center Wants FCC to Insure Access to Airwaves by Candidates
- Justices to Review Campaign Finance Law Constraints
- DC Court Rules Campaign Contribution Limits On Individuals is Unconstitutional
- The Disclose Act is a matter of campaign honesty
- NEA chairman's 'Art Works' tour
- Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits
Ratings
Recommendation:
2
Informative:
0
Accuracy:
0
Login to rate this headline.