Judge tosses rule shielding campaign donors

CBS

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling could pave the way to requiring groups that spend money on electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for federal office — to disclose their donors.

The FEC ruled in 2007 that corporations and nonprofits did not have to reveal the identities of those who financed such ads. That regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups — like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA — on pre-election ads.

Campaign-finance regulations have received new scrutiny this election cycle, following a handful of federal court rulings that stripped away long-established limits on how much individuals and organizations may contribute to groups favoring certain candidates.

One such high-profile case, known as Citizens United, gave a green light for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of their cash on campaign ads. That effectively led to the expansion of "super" political action committees, which have expended more than $50 million on the Republican primary elections and are largely funded by wealthy donors.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who brought the suit against the FEC last year, has also proposed a bill that would require more detailed disclosure requirements for campaign finance, known as the Disclose Act. That bill has garnered support in light of nonprofits funneling anonymous money to their affiliated super PACs, effectively shielding the names of some donors.

Multimillion dollar ad campaign raises the stakes over gas prices
Romney's fundraisers quietly amass millions
Super PAC donors by the numbers

In her 31-page ruling, Jackson said the FEC did not have legislative authority to substantially change McCain-Feingold, officially known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. She said it is up to Congress, not the FEC, to make such changes.

The FEC, created in the 1970s in the wake of the Watergate scandal, is empowered to set regulations on campaign-finance law and enforce subsequent violations. The commission has struggled in recent months to define new regulations, largely due to a bitterly divided makeup of three Republican and three Democratic commissioners.

Under McCain-Feingold, groups that spend more than $10,000 per year on such campaign ads must file reports with the FEC. Some groups later testified before the FEC that disclosing all donors — not ones who specifically earmarked their money for ads — would be an administrative burden.

[stupidrules3]

I am sure that the republicans would never do such a thing, would they? Get real, both political parties are bought and paid for by special interests. Special interests that buy both sides of the aisle so, no matter who wins, their butts are covered.

[audemus]

What I find appalling is that such a rule was ever in place to begin with.

[BigMykul]

by wdrussell1 March 31, 2012 11:28 AM EDT
The Supreme Court owes America an apology.
______________________________________________
Only One?

[BigMykul]

The FEC ruled in 2007 that corporations and nonprofits did not have to reveal the identities of those who financed such ads. That regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA on pre-election ads.

One such high-profile case, known as Citizens United, gave a green light for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of their cash on campaign ads. That effectively led to the expansion of "super" political action committees, which have expended more than $50 million on the Republican primary elections and are largely funded by wealthy donors.
____________________________________________________________
I see that both sides are doing the same thing from the first paragraph. And The second paragraph shows that both sides can do it according to the law.

But, my question is why only disclose the amount spent by one side and not the other as shown in the second paragraph? Or is none spent on the other side?

[Kayvote2012]

What a surprise Judge Berman Jackson is a Obama appointee - but I am sure that she has no political agenda....come on people its all politics all the time on both sides. The reason the dems hate this law is that the conservatives are finally able to match the liberal special interests and in some cases exceed them. I guarantee you that if the liberals thought that this law was a win for them, they would not be sitting on their high horse crying for transparency. We didn't hear a thing when they had the upper hand with the Unions but now that there is a little parity, they cry foul. Give me a break!

[danton5]

Let me help you here. THe Citizens United Case said that the federal government cannot restrict the AMOUNT that corporations can contribute to a campaign. THIS case was about the FEC overiding the requirement in McCain/Feingold that requires DISCLOSURE the names of any groups contributing more than $10,000 to campaign. The judge ruled correctly. WHy ANYONE on either side doesn't think it is a good idea to know WHO is contributing to a campaign is beyond me. And don't worry the democrats will have PLENTY of money for the campaign this year.

[jimbom121]

So you don't think that campaign donations should be disclosed?

[danton5]

Different issue than Citizens United case. Try reading the articel again, maybe you will understand, but i doubt it.

The judge is a graduate of Harvard Law School. You?

[jimbom121]

True...GW Bush was from Harvard.

[vsmit]

True . . . Obama was from Harvard.

[wdrussell1]

The Supreme Court owes America an apology.

[raymailhot]

As a conservative, I see no problem with this ruling. But I imagine the right kind of billionaire won't be an issue for some.

[forrestt56]

The hidden money in politics is corupt money. Election information should be honest and above board not under the table. The Supreme Court proved that they are corupted by approving this so-called "Citizens United" scandal.

[newz4me]

I too agree completely with this post. We do not vote under the table, so why should politicians be allowed to run "under the table."

[smittyc]

Not surprising. A recent Obama appointee and clearly demonstrating they are running scared. Its all politics folks, the Supreme court already decided this. Citizens United case Judge Jackson. Where did you get your law degrees? Sears and Roebuck or its lifelong competition Harvard. Another Fluke advocate, where's Russ when you need him?

[byrdh5n1]

Methinks you.... russ... to judgement. Moe-ron.....