Ruling on campaign spending under fire

WASHINGTON — Unlimited corporate spending in U.S. elections will not tilt campaigns toward those companies' interests, even if they can far outspend non-corporate contributors, a lawyer told an incredulous Sen. Charles E. Schumer on Tuesday.

At a hearing on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited corporate spending on behalf of political campaigns, Mr. Schumer, D-N.Y., and one of the ruling's supporters sparred briefly over how a flood of corporate money might change the political landscape.

Mr. Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which held the hearing, is helping draft legislation to reverse or limit the impact of the ruling.

But as Tuesday's hearing illustrated, he is running up against conservative lawyers who argue that corporate voices will not poison the political process as many good-government organizations argue, and that unfettered speech will weed out messages that voters find distasteful.

Mr. Schumer asked one of the panelists, Stephen M. Hoersting, executive director of the Center for Competitive Politics, about the hypothetical case of a "Congressman Smith" who supports health care legislation opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which pours $5 million into issue-oriented advertisements intended to unseat him. The Supreme Court ruling allows such independent expenditures, which previously were banned, although it did not address a ban on direct contributions to candidates.

Mr. Hoersting said such a campaign probably would spur more spending by the congressman's allies, in the spirit that the best advertisement can be a response.

"I think Smith would have friends, and I think people would be turned off by certain ads," Mr. Hoersting said.

Replied Mr. Schumer, "With all due respect, I think you're living in a different world than we are."

The legislation Mr. Schumer and others are about to propose would require that corporate-sponsored ads carry a message indicating which company paid for them and possibly require the chief executive officer's name to be disclosed. It also would require that political spending be approved by a vote of a company's shareholders. Similar legislation is being drafted in the House.

In addition, some lawmakers called for a constitutional amendment to declare that free speech rights do not extend to corporations.

Lawmakers will face more complicated questions, including whether to put the same requirements on nonprofit groups, charities and civic leagues, for instance. Mr. Schumer asked witnesses that question specifically.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a pro-campaign finance reform group, said disclosure requirements should apply to those groups as well and added that the Supreme Court appeared to embrace full disclosure of political spending by all groups.

At least one witness warned that the ruling could have a big impact on state and local elections, especially in states that ban political spending by corporations. But New York already allows unlimited issue-advocacy spending by corporations and up to $5,000 a year in direct contributions to political candidates and committees, said John Conklin, a spokesman for the state Board of Elections. The Supreme Court ruling should not affect the state, he said.