Along with the multiplicity of issues that were raised in Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), Citizens United challenged the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s (“BCRA”) disclosure and disclaimer requirement. Id. at 913. Some of the relevant provisions of the BCRA that are mentioned by Citizens United include section 311, which mandates that “televised electioneering communications funded by anyone other than a candidate must include a disclaimer that [identifies who] ‘is responsible for the content of this advertising.’” Id. at 913–14 (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2)). Furthermore, section 201, requires that “any person who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering communications within a calendar year must file a disclosure statement with the FEC. Id. at 914 (citing 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(1)). These two provisions that are overemphasized by Citizens United are in no way unduly burdensome on corporations, or any other “person” for that matter.
The majority emphasizes that the “disclaimer and disclosure requirements” do not “ ‘impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,’ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976), and ‘do not prevent anyone from speaking,’ McConnell v. FEC, 124 S. Ct. 619 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).” Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914. This issue set forth by Citizens United’s is more of a non-issue. A disclosure contained in the advertisement, or other communication, simply informs the electorate as to the maker of the statement. If Citizens United seeks to impress the value of Freedom of Speech, why would it not wish to emphasize that this particular opinion, expressed via Hillary, is one that they believe in and would attest to?
Furthermore, an argument as to the burden that would be placed upon speakers because of the limitations and restrictions imposed by the BCRA is unjustified. BCRA requires an admission as to the owner of the statement, and if the contributions exceed the specified amount of $10,000, then a simple disclosure statement including the “identi[t]y [of] the person making the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the election to which the communication was directed, and the names of certain contributors” must be filed with the FEC. Id. at 914 (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2)). The requirement does not put a cap on the amount that expenditures can be; however, it does require that information be provided when certain expenditures exceed the specified amount. Contributors are free to make as many budget-busting videos, or advertisements, as they desire. Why would a disclosure statement that would probably only be, at the maximum, a couple pages in length, be considered “burdensome?”
Also, it is only fair that the contributors have knowledge of the beliefs and views of those that are receiving their monetary support. It would be nonsensical to think that contributors were randomly tossing money into an entity that he or she did not have values that coincided with that of the entity. The information that the entities are being forced to disclose and disclaim are those that should be readily available beforehand; thus, what burden is there to produce information that probably already exists.
The arguments made by Citizens United, as to the above-mentioned BCRA sections, can be viewed as a “grasping for straws” approach to gain some leverage within the larger issue. The Court addresses the matter within a minimal 6 paragraphs. The Court gave the faint arguments regarding the BCRA provisions more discussion, and ink, than they probably deserved.
The BCRA should apply to corporations. Corporations should be restricted on how much campaign contribution they can donate, and the type of activity it can participate in. I think this would be fair because every other person in the United States is restricted on the amount of political support they can give. Further, I think this would be a sound policy choice to limit the negative ramifications from the decision in Citizens United.
ReplyDelete