WSJ falsely suggests Dems exempted unions from new campaign finance disclosure rules

WSJ: “Unions get a pass from new campaign finance disclosure rules.” In a May 3 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed that "[u]nions get a pass from new campaign finance disclosure rules" and asserted that “the real goal” of the legislation “sponsored by Democrats Charles Schumer in the Senate and Chris Van Hollen in the House” is “to muzzle criticism -- at least from some people.” The Journal further stated:

When President Obama berated the High Court earlier this year for its free speech ruling, he was very specific about whose free speech he opposed. “This is a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests,” said Mr. Obama of the decision, suggesting that despite the good governance rhetoric, this legislation is not about muzzling spenders generally so much as specific spenders who don't always salute the Democratic agenda.

In fact, the proposal imposes restrictions on unions as well as corporations and advocacy groups

Republican Rep. Castle: “There is equal treatment and the requirement of all interest groups included in this bill.” During an April 29 press conference, Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) stated [accessed via Nexis]:

CASTLE: I don't see why this issue is a partisan one that should divide us, as we have heard. There is equal treatment and the requirement of all interest groups included in this bill, as Chris has explained -- corporations, unions, and issue groups alike -- to disclose the money trail when they participate in campaign activities. I hope we can have an open dialogue about the bill as it moves through the process, to ensure that there is equal treatment across the board.

And I would like to join with all of my colleagues in support of this and the continuing work as it does wend its way through the process here in the House, and I assume in the Senate.

New York Times: Bill would “require corporations, unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to identify themselves on advertisements they pay for.” In a May 1 article, The New York Times reported:

To counter the [Citizens United decision], House and Senate Democrats introduced a measure last week called the Disclose Act, short for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.

The bill would require corporations, unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to identify themselves on advertisements they pay for. Chief executives would have to offer an “I approved this message” endorsement similar to those of candidates running campaign commercials.

Bill would restrict coordination between unions and candidates. From the summary of the legislation introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen:

This legislation would do the following:

• For House and Senate races, the legislation would ban coordination between a corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a Congressional candidate within 90 days of the primary through the general election.

• For all federal elections, at any time before the 90- or 120-day window opens, it would ban coordination of ads between a corporation or union and the candidate when they promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate.

LA Times: Unions “would be required to create traceable campaign accounts” and disclose “source of donations exceeding $1,000.” In an April 29 article, the Los Angeles Times reported that under the proposal, "[c]orporations, unions and advocacy groups would be required to create traceable campaign accounts and disclose -- via the Web and corporate filing statements -- the source of donations exceeding $1,000."

From the summary of the legislation:

i. SETTING UP 'PAPER TRAILS' WITH THE FEC

The legislation would require corporations, labor unions, and organizations organized under 501(c) 4, 5, or 6 laws -- as well as 527 organizations -- to, for the first time, establish separate “political broadcast spending” accounts to receive and disperse political expenditures.

• All funds received into these “political activities” accounts must be publicly reported to the FEC. The following information must also be disclosed:

Date and amount of the funds transferred

Whether the transferred funds are intended for use in a particular election or directed to a particular candidate and, if so, disclose the election and/or candidate.

Name of the individual who controls the account

Name of donors and transferors

Date of each donation and transfer in excess of $10,000,

Election or name of the candidate if the donation or transfer was so designated.

• All funds disbursed from the “political activities” accounts must be publicly reported to the FEC with the following information:

Name of the person making the disbursement

Amount of each disbursement of more than $ 200 during the required period, the election to which the disbursement is made

Independent Expenditure-related candidate and whether the expenditure is directed in support of or opposition to the candidate

Electioneering Communication-related candidate who is the subject of the communication and whether the candidate is being supported or opposed through the expenditure.

Certification by the CEO or the head of the entity responsible, that the independent expenditure or electioneering communication is not made in coordination with a candidate, candidate committee or party committee.

• All funds transferred from the “political activities” account for the purpose of a political expenditure, or that is not restricted for use for a political expenditure, must be publicly reported to the FEC with the following information:

Name of the transferor

Name of the recipient