Obama Slams GOP For Opposing DISCLOSE Act Meant to Expose "Shadow Groups" Behind Ads

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on campaign finance reform, Monday, July 26, 2010, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington.

/ AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Updated 4:16 p.m. Eastern Time

President Obama today urged the Senate to pass the DISCLOSE Act, a bill designed to address the Supreme Court's controversial Citizen's United decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising.

He also harshly criticized Republicans for standing in the way of passage, using campaign trail-type rhetoric in the Rose Garden.

Tomorrow's planned vote on DISCLOSE in the Senate, he said, is "about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy."

He said that under the current rules, special interests "can hide behind a name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if a more accurate name would be 'Companies for Weaker Oversight.'"

The president said "shadow groups" are already building war chests to spend to influence the 2010 midterm elections.

"Imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians," Mr. Obama said, discussing how a company or group could threaten to run "an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign" against a politician who opposes its agenda.

The president said passing DISCLOSE should be "common sense."

"You'd think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue, but of course this is Washington in 2010," he said.

Mr. Obama criticized Republicans for trying to keep DISCLOSE from coming up for a vote, linking their opposition to their standing in the way of an extension of unemployment benefits.

"On issue after issue, we are trying to move America forward and they keep trying to take us back," he said.

Also known as the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that corporations and unions spending on campaigns and running political advertising publicly identify top donors and related information.

It would also restrict foreign-controlled corporations from spending money in U.S. elections.

The House passed the DISCLOSE Act last month.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama invoked a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who warned against corporate influence in elections because he "didn't want everybody else being drowned out."

A vote against the bill, he said, is a vote to "allow corporate and special interest takeover of our elections."

In response to the president's remarks, Michael Steel, spokesman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, said Mr. Obama is ignoring "serious problems" to push "a bill to improve Washington Democrats' electoral prospects."

And Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said that "the mere suggestion that a bill designed to save politicians' jobs should take precedent over helping millions of Americans find work is an embarrassing indictment of Democrats' priorities."

If the DISLCOSE Act passes, corporations and unions would have to disclose the top five donors in their political ads. In addition, the head of a company or group behind an ad would be required to appear in it, much like a candidate now has to "approve this message."

The bill exempts certain organizations with more than 500,000 members, including the NRA, AARP and the Humane Society, from the requirements.

The exemptions angered both liberals who were upset over concessions to the NRA as well as conservatives angry that the pro-gun lobby agreed not to oppose the legislation. Critics have also noted the irony that a bill meant to rein in special interests includes a carve-out for some of them.

Conservative groups have cast DISCLOSE as an impingement on free speech.

"With millions of Americans out of work, you would think the Senate would focus its efforts on creating American jobs rather than spending time on a bill designed to protect their own," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a statement today. "The DISCLOSE Act is a perfect example of Washington politics at its absolute worst, and at a time when the country can afford it least. Legislation that silences incumbent politicians' critics and exempts their political friends should never be considered in America."

The Chamber of Commerce is a right-leaning group planning to spend $75 million to influence the midterm elections. Under the DISCLOSE Act it would be forced to disclose its top donors in its advertising. More than 300 business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, today sent a letter to the Senate opposing the DISCLOSE Act.

[Peter_Brito]

This legislation is just common sense. To boost my point, for years I thought the Chamber of Commerce was a federal governmental institution, now I come to see that they are really a right wing lobbying group. Do America a favor and pass this. If you're honest you have nothing to hide.

[afmcalax]

Why would anyone be against a bill that says if you are going to say or print something you must openly identify yourself? No front organizations. Look at all the correct sounding names that turn out to be sponsored by the same companies that are affected by pending legislation. This truth in advertising law has absolutely no drawbacks. For Republicans to basically say they want to allow corporations to continue to mislead and spew forth their propaganda with no accountability shows their lack of morals and honesty.

[facelessdrone2005]

Granted that the law has its flaws, but any disclosure is better than NONE, which is what we have now. Where is the Republican counterproposal to fix the flaws by requiring MORE disclosure? They criticize that it doesn't provide adequate disclosure but in reality they don't want ANY disclosure, which is why they have no such counterproposal. Again, they show themselves to be the party of NO with NO IDEAS.

[Jason_Clearbrook]

However, Mr. Face does not disclose anything near the Truth about this law by saying anything like: "However, a union with foreign ties would not fall under this restriction."

Duh, like that is the *only* advantage the Unions gain from this.

Let it be said clearly: This Law, if passed, will have motions everywhere in Federal Courts for Injunctions against enforcement of this Law. I think this is highly likely to succeed, since the manner in which this law is being enacted (taking effect immediately -- without proper time for proper judicial review) and the blatent discriminations in this Law (clearly favoring the Unions and the Democratic Party) demand that the courst restore the status quo ante, even if only temporarily until this matter can be decided in proper court proceedings.

Expect that at least one Federal Judge will Grant such an Injunction, and that other Judges, knowing they will look like fools if they do not agree to stop such a blatent power grab by the Democrats, will follow their lead. Some won't, and the matters will be sent to the Appeals Courts.

[themooniac]

Why not disclose campaign funding?

[1renegade]

Amazing that our President doesn't know that the US is a republic not a democracy.

[abbe91]

It was a republic only under Bush. Democracy has only been restored in the republic when he left.

[Mortar_29]

Restored? Democracy was never the form of government we have...nor would we want a democracy. Democracy is the WORST form of government.

[Shocktribe]

Unions are exempt. In word they are included in the bill. In deed however, they are exempt, because their average union dues are under the $600 "threshold" of the bill. Since dues are the unions main source of money, their donors are under the bill's threshold. This was worked out with the unions in mind. This is nothing more than a way for democrats to stop up opponents' funds, while they stay in the "shadow groups" pockets. This is Chicago politics at their worst, right here.

[wmb1957]

Don't blame the Republicans from being against it then.

Unions are way more of a problem for campaign ads then Corporations.

[wfw3536]

Like Obama should talk when during the campaign he recieved millions and millions when he said before the election started that he would take the government. He is a hypocrite.

[KeithDrippingSprings]

The truth is not dangerous to an honest man. Too bad there aren't any in Washington.

[RobAla]

Bottom line: President Obama is no friend to American business. With massive unemployment, he is therefore no friend to the unemployed.

Business now has a political voice - and it is payback time!!!

[johnnierr]

So you want to talk Job Loss?

Are you aware that, when we kicked Bush and the Republicans out in 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs -- per month??

Are you aware that, almost immediately after President Obama took office, the job loss turned around almost immediately?? And has continued to do so??

But don't take my word for it... please... cut Rush off and do your own homework for a change. It'll be much more convincing that way.

[jimbom121]

When has business not had a political voice. By the way, who caused the economic downturn? Oh yeah...business. Who caused the oil spill in the gulf? oh yeah business.