“I’m [corporate CEO’s name here], and I approve this ad.” That’s a line that could become a new campaign-ad mantra, if Congress passes the Democrats’ new campaign-finance bill this year. Under the bill, corporations that run political ads (as blessed by this year’s controversial Supreme Court decision), would have to put their CEOs on-camera to acknowledge responsibility. The bill also might require the same visibility for top contributors to the ad campaign.

I see this as a step in the right direction toward financial disclosure in campaigns. But is it enough? In my ideal world, this legislation wouldn’t be necessary, because campaigns would be publicly financed. However, in the real world, support for public financing has proven elusive, and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has put a serious chill on the public-financing notion. (Remember: President Obama himself rejected the estimated $84 million available to publicly finance his 2008 campaign, choosing instead to raise $650 million on his own, and taking campaign expenditures to the highest levels ever.) So, baby steps like on-camera CEOs may be all we can get, for now.

Other provisions of the bill seem helpful, as well, in adding some sunlight to the naturally shadowy world of campaign finance. Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) plans to introduce the bill later this year. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) is expected to be the sponsor in the Senate. According to Hotline On Call, the bill would:

require corporations, unions and other outside groups to disclose within 24 hours when they have engaged in campaign-related activity and when they transfer money to other groups intended for use in campaign-related activity. The groups would also have to disclose campaign activity in already-scheduled reports to shareholders.

The legislation would also prohibit spending by any corporation that is more than 20% owned by a foreign entity. Companies that hold contracts with the government for more than $50K, and any business that has not paid back TARP funds would also be banned from spending.

Is there anything else to be done? Between elections, it would be helpful if news media made a more concerted effort to link legislators’ Congressional speeches and votes to the campaign contributions they’ve received. The Washington Post stands out for its efforts in this direction, and a number of organizations and websites offer excellent reporting on this subject. But I’d like to see all media outlets, when quoting politicians, add revealing campaign-finance context, such as: “Senator X, who received $350,000 in campaign contributions from the banking industry between 2004 and 2009, called the financial-regulation bill a bad idea for America.”

None of these disclosures would be as powerful as requiring Congressional representatives and state legislators to emulate NASCAR drivers and display on their suits the logos of their corporate sponsors and political action committee donors. But that would be too much to hope for.

The post Proposed bill calls for CEOs to appear in campaign ads appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Three new bills introduced in Congress offer a modest counterbalance to the wide-open corporate spending in election campaigns enabled by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

The Corporate Politics Transparency Act, (H.R. 4630),  introduced into the House of Representatives by Gary Ackerman (D-New York) amends securities laws to “require that registration statements, quarterly and annual reports, and proxy solicitations of public companies include a disclosure to shareholders of any expenditure made by that company in support of or in opposition to any candidate for Federal, State, or local public office.”

Another bill just introduced goes a bit further. The Fairness in Corporate Campaign Spending Act of 2010, (H.R. 4644) “prohibits corporations from spending or giving money to run political ads without the prior approval of shareholders.” It’s sponsored by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn.)

In the Senate,  the Citizens Right to Know Act of 2010, (S.3004) was introduced early in February by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). This bill “requires notification to and prior approval by shareholders of certain political expenditures by publicly traded companies, and for other purposes.”

The Supreme Court’s decision makes it nearly impossible to stop corporations from flooding election campaigns with money to advocate for their own interests, but at least these bills could  help shareholders know  how their investments are being used, and where corporate leadership stands on issues and candidates.

The post Will Congress help shareholders see corporations’ election spending? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

According to Congress.org, U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, has just introduced S.3008, a bill that “establishes a government program to support a transition to a freely elected and open democracy in Iran.”

My reaction is to chuckle at the irony, and to feel shocked and awed at the hypocrisy and cynicism of this proposal.  Does Cornyn really believe that an American-imposed program can accomplish that goal? I fear that Cornyn’s transition “program” is actually code for military action to depose the current government in Iran.  That’s our tried-and-true way of “supporting change” in countries we don’t like. And the attitude reflected by this bill sounds eerily like the run-up to “regime change” that we heard before we invaded Iraq.

And even if I’m way off base with that notion, I can’t imagine how the U.S. could show Iran how to run a democracy.   With the tsunami of money pouring into American election campaigns–and with more to come as a result of the recent,  floodgate-opening Supreme Court decision allowing virtually unlimited corporate spending in elections–we’re having enough trouble maintaining  “freely elected” and “open” democracy here at home.

The post Democracy now…for Iran appeared first on Occasional Planet.