Massachusetts Resolution Seeks to Control Super PACs

The January 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that unlimited amounts of money can be donated in elections by using super political action committees, or super PACs, that act independently of candidates. The flood of campaign money allowed by the ruling has already affected the Republican presidential primaries, funneling tens of millions of dollars to pay for mostly negative advertising.

The other day we learned that Mitt Romney’s PAC, Restore America, spent over $14 million just in the month of January. Moreover, they raised over $7 million and began February with over $16 million in the bank. Of that $7 million, $5 million came from just 25 individuals and corporations.

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich’s PAC raised nearly $11 million in January.

A bill proposed by state Sen. James Eldridge, D-Acton urges Congress to present states with an amendment to the Constitution that would create controls on the super PACs. Eldridge said unlimited spending by corporations, the group that has taken the most advantage of the ruling, drowns out the voices of ordinary citizens and the candidates themselves. “You’ve already seen that in the Republican presidential race with super PACs having a huge influence,” Eldridge said.

The resolution, similar to one passed by a number of other states, including neighboring Rhode Island and Vermont, calls for a constitutional amendment that would limit the right of free speech — and thus unfettered campaign spending — to citizens, not corporations. Corporate political spending would be regulated by the states and Congress. Eldridge’s resolution will be the subject of a Feb. 28 hearing by the Committee on the Judiciary.

While the petitioning bills themselves are non-binding, as the number of states accumulate pressure will mount in Congress to make explicit in the Constitution that non-corporeal corporations are not people and are therefore not entitled to the same rights as people are

Eldridge said he has only heard support from state legislators, including Senate President Therese Murray. “I haven’t talked to any legislator who is opposed to it, and that’s why I’m looking forward to the hearing and to see if people come in opposition,” Eldridge said.

State Rep, Lori Ehrlich, D-Marblehead, is a co-sponsor of the bill and spoke at the press conference at which it was first presented. “Though this dangerous decision (Citizens) threw open the barn door, the horses have been sneaking out for a while," said Ehrlich. “If there's anything good to say about it it's this: The sheer largesse of the consequences is helping to illustrate the situation quite plainly. Those with the deepest pockets can sway an election by writing an enormous check to a candidate's SuperPAC which in turn floods the airwaves with negative ads. History, unfortunately, has shown that negative ads work. And because of a disclosure loophole, voters aren't even informed as to who or what corporation is doing the bankrolling.”

What can you do? You can make your voice known and join me in signing a petition urging passage of this resolution http://action.massvote.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9251

What could me easier than that?