“Stand By Every Ad Act” Would Force CEOs To Say “I Stand By This Message”
Reps. David Price (D-N.C.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.) told the Huffington Post in a joint statement that they plan to introduce a bill that would force CEO’s to take ownership of their company’s ads.
For example: “I’m Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, and I approved this message.”
The two House members plan to push the “Stand By Every Ad Act”, which would force a corporate chief to issue a similar message at the end of every commercial.
Castle has the press release posted:
Rep. Price was the lead sponsor of the original “Stand By Your Ad” legislation, enacted as a part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which forces candidates to appear in and claim responsibility for their ads. “Stand By Every Ad” would build upon existing law by forcing corporations, labor unions and associations to abide by the same standards as candidates and political parties. [...] “Stand By Your Ad” has been credited with improving voters’ understanding of the choices they face on Election Day and was explicitly upheld as constitutional in the Supreme Court’s 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision.
The bill would also require companies making robocalls to identify themselves at the start of the message.
Via.
23 Responses to ““Stand By Every Ad Act” Would Force CEOs To Say “I Stand By This Message””
I like this idea. While I agree with the Citizen's United decision, there is no reason they shouldn't have to clearly identify themselves, as do politicians and political organizations.
I like it, too!
So now we get to see the crack dealer? “My name is so and so and I own Sen. Duchebag”.
No thanks. No more private funding.
If the SC decision stands as is, this kind of bill is a necessity. Astroturf groups sponsored by one industry or company also need to be “disallowed” by forcing full disclosure in the ad.
I certainly support the idea of transparency in political funding and this is a step in that direction presuming that it applies to unions and to other parties equally.
The problem I see is the circumventing of the legislative intent through 'concealed adverts' sponsored by various groups and associations, i.e. who knows who is behind ads run by Voters for Wonderful Things PAC? All political donors and all organizations should have to file a standard report at a designated site on the internet so it is clear who is paying to put on the advert, before it runs. Note that this is a problem now, and has nothing to do with the Citizens United decision. It will be interesting to see if the campaign finance 'transparency' champions will address the issue more broadly and effectively than they have in the past.
Well said DaMav. And special Kudos to representatives Mike Castle and David Price for introducing this act. Transparency is essential in order to allow citizens to make informed decisions in elections.
The SCOTUS ruling upheld all existing disclosure laws………so once again, people are assigning features to the ruling that it did not contain and according to this guy also missing the forest because they're myopic about counting corporate trees when there are much bigger trees already out there.
“Yet this decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much. Even before the Citizens United decision, business, labor and wealthy individuals (frequently major owners of corporations, such as Sheldon Adelson of the Las Vegas Sands or George Soros of Soros Fund Management) were already able to spend more than $400 million in the 2008 federal elections on communications with content similar to the Franken ad.
Studies by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice have shown that the candidates themselves do not bother much with media ads that actually say “vote for me” or “vote against her,” even though they are legally able to use those terms. In the modern campaign era, such blatant appeals are largely, if not entirely, anachronistic. Perhaps corporate and union-financed “express advocacy” will increase somewhat, particularly in grass-roots communications aimed at already committed followers. But the overall size, nature and thrust of corporate and union communications in federal elections is unlikely to be affected by Citizens United.
Finally, it is curious to see some of the same Democratic members of Congress who fought — on behalf of labor union allies — legislative proposals to rein in corporate and union-financed 527 political organizations now denouncing the Citizens United decision, which essentially ratifies a status quo they worked to protect.
It is also revealing that we heard little from members of either party when the Federal Election Commission emasculated the McCain-Feingold 60/30-day ad restrictions. Nor was there congressional resistance when the bipartisan FEC adopted a weak public disclosure regulation for such ads, one that does not require their 501(c) nonprofit corporate sponsors, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Health Care for America Now, to reveal their ultimate for-profit corporate, union and individual donors. Although the court last week upheld disclosure, this regulation still enables Citizens United to hide its donors.
If members of Congress are now serious about searching for new ways to limit the impact of corporate and union spending in elections and improving its disclosure, they should start by re-examining their own behavior.”
Stephen R. Weissman writes about Congress and foreign policy. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Just to be clear, while this ruling included corporations and labor unions, the supreme court went well beyond anything the unions were looking for and they are critical of the ruling. And why wouldn't they be? Corporations can outspend them 10 to 1. I'm good with the transparency, but better still with a reversing of the decision. We have enough legalized bribery in this country as it is.
CO,
Mr. Weissman gives a well reasoned take on the decision, as do you when you point out, accurately, that the decision does not impact disclosure laws and regulations.
The extent to which I quibble with Mr. Weissman, and I suppose you since you put up the quote, is when he says, “the overall size, nature and thrust of corporate and union communications in federal elections is unlikely to be affected by Citizens United.” It is not that I directly disagree, but that I regard it as more of a “we shall see” proposition.
As to the Stand by Your Ad legislation, it strikes me as a bit silly. “I'm Senator Smith and I approve this ad” has degenerated into little more that a punch line in an SNL skit. The titular “president” of a 527 group saying s/he approves the ad brings no substance to the discussion, unless it is someone we know. Better grist would be disclosing major sponsors of the ad and its distribution.
Though you and I disagree about the decision in Citizens United, CO, my suggestion to all would be to wait and see what, if any, the fallout is before pressing for additional legislation or regulation of something whose impact is yet unknown. Legislating out of fear that something *might* happen is not useful and often counterproductive.
I agree, let's chat again……………in a couple of years.
I doubt it will take that long to see the fallout from the decision. I hope I'm wrong.
This is the weakest solution to the biggest problem EVER.
Congress needs to lean HARD on the language in the 14th that does not allow any law to be passed [or upheld] that abridges [suppresses/overshadows] the rights of individual citizens. Clearly this ruling casts financial handcuffs over the wrists of the everyday wo/man to have their voice heard.
Also the language of the 14th clearly defines a “citizen” as someone born here or naturalized here. If any part of a corporation “united” is of foreign birth, guess what? The SCOTUS ruling is unconstitutional. Do we not have any attorneys on staff working for the dems in Congress????
You mean who know how to get up on their hind legs?
there is no reason they shouldn't have to clearly identify themselves, as do politicians and political organizations
I imagine these noble congressmen were moved to act by the epidemic of anonymous ads currently gripping the nation. If only we could force these sponsors to disclose *which* driving machine is the ultimate or *where* we can get flame-broiled burgers prepared our way, we would become a truly free people. This culture of secrecy has gone far enough.
Good luck with the corporate transparency thingee. I think it's a great idea, but also think the system is too rigged to let the commoners have that much information.
Actually, here is a very interesting post from The Volokh Conspiracy. The two main points are that 26 states currently allow corporations to do exactly what the Citizens United ruling made national, and that the corporate money has NOT become dominant at all;
http://volokh.com/2010/02/04/california-indepen…
Interesting link Shaden. I hope that's a trend that will continue. I wonder if one effect it might have though, one that isn't obvious enough to show up on a graph, is candidates and incumbents being less likely to do anything that could be interpreted as anti-corporate (a generalization I know) including a lower inclination to push for tougher regulations for fear of having to face a corporate backed opponent in an election. Just surmising here…
You mean like Democrats being afraid to do anything perceived as anti-union?
“I'm Senator Smith and I approve this ad” has degenerated into little more that a punch line in an SNL skit.'
I agree, and only shareholders and (cough) union members can suggest transparency as to where their bucks are going.
Tidbits, a little off topic but as you have commented several times, the SC overreached on the Citizen's ruling. Question, can they take a case, underreach and come to a ruling? Just my three cent thought.
Agreed. (Surprised)
You mean like Democrats being afraid to do anything perceived as anti-union?
'
Who would ever know, they are so busy genuflecting that we hardly see their faces.
( I am DDUCK, and I approved this unfair characterization.)
Dear Duck,
Good question. Courts can rule “narrowly”, instead of expansively. Narrow rulings are a hallmark of judicial restraint. Expansive ruling a hallmark of judicial activism.
No time to go into detail as I must take my daughter and her date out to dinner before Winter Formal this evening. I will try to locate you tomorrow to explain fully with specifics & examples & comparison to CU case.
tidbits
CU case.'
Thanks, no rush.