Political ads, brought to you by Goldman Sachs?

[bobbyw24]

FORTUNE -- More than seven months after it was handed down, the Supreme Court's ruling that rolled back limits on corporate participation in elections remains mired in controversy.

Last week, Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) made news after it announced it wouldn't spend any corporate funds directly on political ads. The surprise decision means the firm will voluntarily steer clear of the giant loophole the high court opened in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case when it struck down a century's worth of restrictions on those types of expenditures.


A few days later, Target (TGT, Fortune 500)'s chief executive Gregg Steinhafel wrote employees to apologize for a $150,000 contribution the retail giant made to a business group backing a conservative gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. After the group disclosed the contribution in a state filing, gay rights groups and other left-leaning organizations had expressed outrage at the donation -- made possible by the Supreme Court ruling -- since the candidate has been a vocal opponent of gay-rights initiatives. Steinhafel said the company would set up a review process to screen future contributions.

To some campaign finance reform advocates, the twin developments confirmed the pressures facing major corporations trying to navigate in a newly unrestricted environment. But they also underlined a bigger problem: trade associations and other non-profit groups can now spend freely on ads attacking or supporting specific candidates. And because those groups don't always have to identify their funders, they provide a safe vehicle for corporations looking to launder their involvement in dicey election contests.

In other words, Goldman Sachs can publicly say it won't fund political ads and still go right ahead doing it privately.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/11/new..._topstories+(Top+Stories)&utm_content=Twitter

 

[YumYum]

The article states:

Reform advocates, keying off an argument in the Citizens United decision blessing disclosure, spent the spring and summer pressing for a legislative fix that in part would have forced third-party groups to name the funders of their ads. Called the DISLCOSE Act -- Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections -- the measure passed the House but collapsed in the Senate late last month against uniform Republican opposition.

I wonder why Republicans are against this bill and Democrats are not?

 

[ChaosControl]

How about no group can run political ads?

 

[oyarde]

I agree

How about no group can run political ads?

Solution would be only individuals can donate.They can donate any amount they want.All information would be available to the public.

 

[specsaregood]

I wonder why Republicans are against this bill and Democrats are not?

Dunno, maybe because it exempts unions? http://www.workerfreedom.org/disclose-act-exempts-unions-central-disclosure-a3813

Here is a good reason to be against it from the ACLU:

The amendment exempts organizations that have over 500,000 members, are over 10 years old, have a presence in all 50 states and whose revenue from corporations and unions is less than 15 percent. By exempting larger organizations that might tend to be more mainstream from certain disclosure requirements, the bill inequitably suppresses only the speech of smaller organizations that might be more controversial, and compromises the anonymity of small donors

It exempts the biggest organizations, does that sound like a good idea?