Supreme Court Ruling Equals Big Win for U.S. Chamber

Corks are still popping on H Street, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce won its Supreme Court case and now has the green light to legally spend unlimited and undisclosed corporate contributions on direct advocacy in federal elections. While experts might disagree whether the Citizens United decision helps Republicans or Democrats more, the consensus is that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the big winner emerging from this major overhaul of the nation's campaign finance rules.

Some experts predict that this case will "open the floodgates" for even more election spending by the U.S. Chamber on behalf of corporations. As one Republican lawyer explained:

"If people think that individual companies are going to go out and buy ads, there may be some of that, but for the most part companies are going to flow this money through trade groups and other outside groups," said Robert Kelner, a GOP election lawyer at Covington & Burling. "This will open the floodgates for money flowing through groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other associations [that] spend money on political advertising." [Hotline On Call Blog, 1/21/2010]

With restrictions on direct support of a candidate struck down, the Chamber will undoubtedly be able to spend as much or more on ads, mail, field activity and the like that directly advocates the election of their preferred candidates--or the defeat of the ones they disagree with.

Disclosure? Not for the U.S. Chamber

Experts Say Chamber Wins Because it Can Hide Identities of Corporate Donors: Some reports point out that the Supreme Court upheld disclosure requirements [Bloomberg, 1/21/2010], but these requirements never really applied to the U.S. Chamber anyway. The Chamber has long admitted that it raises dedicated sources of funds to pay for these campaigns, but it refuses to disclose sources of funding.

Recent reports have pointed to five of the country's largest insurance companies as sources for up to $20 million of the funds used by the Chamber to fund its campaign against health care reform. The group also spent more than a $1 million on issue ads praising Scott Brown in the eight days leading up to the recent Massachusetts special election--and never had to disclose the source of one dime. And the Wall Street Journal noted that one Chamber strategy in issue campaigns is to "move the spotlight off" unpopular corporate voices. "Corporations can contribute to the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber can spend the money," says campaign-finance reform advocate Fred Wertheimer on TPMuckraker.com. "So we'll have no way of knowing where [the money] comes from, even with the disclosure requirements."

Thursday's Supreme Court decision opens the floodgates for more unfettered spending--and much less disclosure--in the coming months.