Outside Groups to Spend $150 Million

The AP reports:

A loose coalition of liberal and labor organizations expects to spend about $150 million this fall to push its causes and help Democrats win the White House and strengthen their grip on Congress.

Participants include the two main labor coalitions — the AFL-CIO and Change to Win — as well as MoveOn.org and voter mobilization groups for minorities and young people. Organizers were announcing the effort Tuesday during conference sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future.

Liberal and labor strategists say an animated Democratic electorate and a dispirited Republican base have created a political environment tailor-made to advance their agenda.

. . .

The Fund for America, with a goal of raising $100 million, was set up last year by John Podesta, a former chief of staff for President Clinton; Anna Burger, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union; and Rob McKay, a California philanthropist. Among its donors are multimillionaire financier George Soros, who gave it $2.5 million last year, and the SEIU, which also contributed $2.5 million last year, according to Fund for America’s IRS records. The fund has helped finance another new nonprofit group, the Campaign to Defend America, which already has run anti-McCain ads.

Bill Disapproves of Prior Written Approval

A trade association with corporate members seeking to expand political participation faces obstacles to growing its PAC.  These PACs are allowed to solicit contributions from the  stockholders and executive and administrative personnel, and their families, of the trade association’s corporate members, if the corporation has given prior written approval (a separate and specific approval of the  solicitation) and has not approved a solicitation by any other trade association for the same year. 

Last Congress saw a proposal to end the requirement, which apparently never had a highly-developed rationale, in the PAC Fairness Act of 2007.  The proposal would have changed 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(4)(D) as follows:

This paragraph shall not prevent a trade association or a separate segregated fund established by a trade association from soliciting contributions from the stockholders and executive or administrative personnel of the member corporations of such trade association and the families of such stockholders or personnel.  to the extent that such solicitation of such stockholders and personnel, and their families, has been separately and specifically approved by the member corporation involved, and such member corporation does not approve any such solicitation by more than one such trade association in any calendar year.

Amending the First Amendment

A proposed amendment to the Constitution is designed, in the proponent’s words, to “in fact allow for better First Amendment protection in situations where a candidate’s views might be dwarfed by a self-financing opponent. In addition to restoring Congress’ power to regulate campaign finances in federal elections, the resolution also authorizes similar power to each state for election to state or local office, ballot initiatives, and referenda.”  The Center for Competititve Politics covers the issue here.

The First Amendment would become: 

‘Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office.

`Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money, including through setting limits, for–

    `(1) State or local ballot initiatives, referenda, plebiscites, or other similar ballot measures; and

    `(2) campaigns for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or local office.

`Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’.