Several Senators — we’ve heard Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — have taken to the Senate floor today in anticipation of tomorrow’s vote on the DISCLOSE Act.  Sen. Whitehouse is being especially extreme in his attacks, calling the Supreme Court a “radical group,” making accusations about “corruption” and money laundering, and now claiming that the court has “opened the floodgates to foreign corporations” to “drown out American voters” and buy elections.

Not true.

Sean Parnell at the Center for Competitive Politics has been watching the Senate speeches, too, and given his detailed knowledge of the legislation and the politics involved, we’ll allow him to correct the falsehoods.

Listening to them speak, it’s become even more clear than ever that not only are the Senate advocates of the DISCLOSE Act wrong (a subjective opinion, of course, although one we can amply defend) but they are almost completely ignorant of what this legislation would do, what current law on the subject is, and what the court ruled in Citizens United.

All of the things being said that are simply factually incorrect, at least all that I heard, have been covered by us here at CCP repeatedly in the past. The plainly false statements include:

• Foreign corporations are now free to fund election ads (they aren’t)
• Citizens United overturned a 100-year old law (it didn’t)
• The DISCLOSE Act is “just” disclosure (it’s much more)

This is just a brief sampling of the transparently inaccurate statements made by Democratic Senators on the floor so far today regarding the DISCLOSE Act, and doesn’t even begin to address things like the claim that a bill that prohibits more than half the largest companies in the country from speaking without limiting a single union somehow represents a fair and even-handed treatment of the business and labor communities.

What’s so astonishing is that the Senate supporters of the bill believe (or claim to believe) that the American public wants Congress to act on this legislation, supposed campaign finance reform that is really an attack on the First Amendment.

We believe the public would prefer to see the Senate consider measures to strengthen the economy, keep tax rates under control, and improve U.S. competitiveness.

Note — 4:30 p.m. corrected the state designation for Sen. Whitehouse.

The Center for Competitive Politics passes on some important analysis from House staffers about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act.

The Manager’s Amendment to the DISCLOSE Act, slated for a Thursday floor vote in the House, seems to contain a glaring carve out for the benefit of labor unions, according to a quick analysis by House Administration Committee staff.

The Brady amendment would exempt from reporting requirements transfers between affiliated entities up to $50,000 (p. 10). Even more beneficial to labor unions the bill now reads that if the transferred amount is attributable to individual dues paid on a regular basis then the transfer amount is attributable to the individual rather than the organization (p. 14-15). The average amount of individual, annual dues ($377) is well below the bill’s threshold of $600 for mandated disclosure.

So, in effect, unions would be able to shift unlimited amounts of money around through various affiliated entities and never have to report or disclose any of it. The definition of “affiliate” includes two organizations that are affiliated with the same organization, so the shell game possibilities are endless.

Don’t believe the acronym, the bill is about loopholes and special treatment for politically favored groups.

More from The Daily Caller:

House Democratic leadership is aiming to pass its campaign spending bill on Thursday, while Democrats are defending it from criticism that it includes loopholes for special interests.

The Daily Caller reported Monday that the legislation, called the DISCLOSE Act, shields labor unions from many of its requirements.

For example, restrictions on companies that received government bailouts during the financial crisis apply to businesses, but not unions: Under the DISCLOSE Act, General Motors can’t tell you who to vote for, but the United Auto Workers union can.

Despite heavy pressure from labor unions, supporters have not been able to force the Employee Free Choice Act through Congress this year. Hell of a fall-back position to mollify labor: We’ll limit speech in all federal elections, not just union ones.

UPDATE (12:05 p.m.): More from the Center for Competitive Politics. The lefty Mother Jones publication reported AFSCME’s obviously successful efforts to win this exemption last week:

Mother Jones: “Labor, Guns, and Money”
June 17
AFSCME is trying to exempt state and local political organizations that accept soft money—that is, unrestricted contributions from individuals or groups—from being regulated under the bill. Under the DISCLOSE Act, such groups, which often receive union backing, would have to disclose their donors if their campaign ads reference a federal candidate. AFSCME opposes having to out itself as the backer of these state and local campaign efforts. “The problem is that we have local union affiliates—we have 4000 of them—that could make a contribution to one of these entities…which could trigger these very detailed disclosure requirements,” said Loveless. He said that AFSCME was “trying to protect these local affiliates” from having to make such disclosures.

Matt Sundquist of the legal affairs blog, Scotusblog, examines two public opinion surveys taken after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that incorporated entities—businesses, unions and nonprofit advocacy groups—have a First Amendment right to spend money from their general treasuries to fund independent advertisements urging people to vote for or against candidates for public office.

We had already critiqued one, a Washington Post/ABC survey, for the tendentious phrasing of its questions. The other survey Sunquist writes about was conducted for the self-styled campaign finance reform advocates, Common Cause, Change Congress, and the Public Campaign Action Fund, which seek to limit campaign spending and abridge First Amendment Rights.

[Neither] of the surveys mentions important distinctions between federal laws, which previously banned corporate contributions, and state laws, which in many cases have permitted it for years.  And in all three of the questions, the broad language seems to affirmatively mislead respondents.  Although respondents would assume that the survey used accurate, clear language and provided all of the information needed to form an opinion, the survey did neither.

Although the language of these polls is flawed, it is possible to design an improved poll.  Future Citizens United polls ought to distinguish between state and federal laws and eschew mistaken categorical claims.  Knowing that respondents will apply conversational definitions to words, the polls’ creators should use precise language, clarify what types of corporate and union spending are permitted, and accurately contrast the new scope of campaign laws with previous laws.

As we noted in a Saturday post, a survey conducted by the Center for Competitive Politics — which supported the Citizens United ruling — posed specific questions that elicited more informative responses.

From the Center for Competitive Politics, a news release, “Poll on Citizens United shows support for free political speech“:

A poll released today by the Center for Competitive Politics shows that Americans generally support First Amendment rights in politics for corporations, unions and nonprofit advocacy groups.

A majority of respondents supported the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission when asked about the facts of the case and its result: “that incorporated entities—businesses, unions and nonprofit advocacy groups—have a First Amendment right to spend money from their general treasuries to fund independent advertisements urging people to vote for or against candidates for public office.”

“Citizens hold complex views on money in politics. They are wary of ‘special interests’ as well as ‘corporate’ spending, and some are surprisingly willing to censor the press,” said CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith. “At the same time, Americans understand that campaign finance restrictions have failed to reduce the influence of ‘special interests’ and don’t support government efforts to silence the political views of groups, including unions and corporations.”

“Americans also strongly oppose regulations that would restrict the distribution of political books, movies and other publications,” Smith said.

The Washington Post recently touted the results of several poll questions it posed to claim the public overwhelmingly opposed the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and supported limits on corporate contributions. Here were the two questions:

35. Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

36. Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

In knocking the Post for bias and unrevealed self-interest in its coverage of the Washington Post/ABC News poll, we commented, “First, we doubt many in the public are aware of the Citizens United ruling, so a polling story that emphasizes the strong bipartisan sentiment’ for limits oversells the case.” And what do you know? The poll conducted for the Center for Competitive Politics by the Iowa firm, Victory Enterprises, starts out with a question that reveals 60 percent of those questioned were unfamiliar with the Supreme Court’s ruling. (continue reading…)