Schillinger: The DISCLOSE Act Strengthens Democracy

By Karen Schillinger

The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175), or Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, is an important new piece of legislation that corrects the ruling made by the U. S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee.

In 2007, Citizen’s United, a conservative nonprofit organization, responded to Hillary Clinton’s announcment of her candidacy by producing “Hillary: The Movie.” The Federal Elections Committee (FEC) prevented the group from advertising the film, claiming that it ran afoul of McCain-Feingold Act. The U. S. District Court for Washington, D. C. sided with the FEC. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that by not allowing Citizens United to advertise and show the movie, the FEC had infringed on Citizens United’s First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court found, in other words, that public companies have the right to make political expenditures in federal elections.  As President Obama stated, the ruling was “… a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

The Supreme Court was correct in its determination that Citizen United’s First Amendment rights were infringed upon. Under the First Amendment, an individual or organization should be allowed to speak freely about any candidate, whether the candidate is posed in a negative or positive light. However, allowing large public companies to fund federal elections can have the effect of limiting the speech of Americans whose views differ from the large corporations and businesses, and whose resources are much more limited. As the dissenters argued, permitting corporate money to be poured into the political arena could “undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.” The dissenters also made the excellent point that although these large corporations make huge contributions to the economy, they are not individuals and do not have a right to vote. They may have conflicting interests and different agendas from individual American citizens. With all the money they can pour into campaigns, however, corporations can seriously impact the outcome of an election. Why should these large companies, who are not U. S. citizens, have the power to place candidates in office?

To answer that question, we have the DISCLOSE Act, which restricts corporate influence on elections by requiring corporations to disclose their financial involvement in political flyers, movies, etc. and prohibiting foreign countries and entities from making federal elections expenditures.

The bill’s critics claim that DISCLOSE is unconstitutional in that, like certain provisions of McCain-Feingold, it infringes on First Amendment rights. However, businesses and corporations are not citizens and therefore not entitled to the same free speech rights. Each individual within the company has the right to support or speak against a candidate, but it is not right for corporations to spend their stockholders’ money for political purposes.

Ironically, Citizen’s United describes itself as being “….dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control.” It is extremely important to give the power back to the people, and the DISCLOSE Act does that.

It all comes down to freedom of speech. Although the Supreme Court correctly determined that Citizens United’s free speech rights had been violated, the effect of the high court’s decision was to limit everyday Americans’ First Amendment rights.  The House has recognized the flaw in the decision and corrected it by passing the DISCLOSE Act. The Senate should follow its lead.

Karen L. Schillinger is a StateBrief.com summer intern. She attends Cornell University, where she is majoring in Policy Analysis and Management. She is also on the Women’s Varsity Track Team. Karen enjoys working on political campaigns and hopes to work on Capitol Hill after she graduates.