Fixing the corporate fix

IN JANUARY, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a century of legal precedents to declare corporations "persons" under the Constitution - and so entitled to make direct contributions to political candidates.

The decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, opened up cavernous loopholes in campaign-finance laws that already were inadequate to reduce the toxic influence of big money in politics.

How bad could it get? Take a look at the "fixes" included in the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE) that will be introduced in the U.S. House this week. It's co-sponsored in the House by Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Mike Castle, R-Del., and in the Senate by Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. The bill was delayed for two weeks because no Republican senator could be found to co-sponsor it.

* Problem: Foreign individuals are still legally forbidden to contribute to U.S. election campaigns, in which they might favor politicians who do their bidding on trade, national defense or other issues. But Citizens United makes it possible for foreigners to make political contributions to candidates from the tens of billions in profits made by foreign-influenced corporations operating in the U.S.

* Fix: The legislation would prevent political contri-butions from a corporation in which foreigners control 20 percent of its voting shares, if foreign nationals make up a majority of its board of directors or if a foreign national controls the corporation's U.S. operations or its political decision-making.

* Problem: Government contractors could take

the millions paid to them by the taxpayers and use the money to contribute to candidates who would provide them with more contracts. Banks that got taxpayer bailouts could use that money to contribute to the opponents of legislators who support financial reform.

* Fix: Corporations that get more than $50,000 in

government contracts may not contribute to campaigns. Banks that got bailout funds may not contribute until they pay back the money.

* Problem: Corporations - as well as unions or other advocacy organizations - could reach into their deep pockets to pay for political ads. They could create front organizations to run ads that would lose credibility if the true sponsors were known: An energy company could secretly pay for ads to attack a candidate who had voted for cap and trade. A union could do the same against a candidate who opposed the Employee Free Trade Act. The corporations or unions could use company or union funds without fully informing their stockholders or rank-and-file members in a timely manner.

* Fix: The CEO of a corporation or the president

of a union would have to appear in the ad to say the organization paid for and approved it. A corporation or other organization would have to report all campaign-related activity to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours and post it on the company or union's Web site. Shareholders and members of unions and other organizations must be informed of their groups' political activities in quarterly and annual reports.

The DISCLOSE bill is needed as a quick fix right now, but it is far from a permanent fix. What's really needed is a constitutional amendment that defines human beings alone (and not corporations) as persons who can contribute to political campaigns. But until then, this legislation would keep actual living, breathing Americans from being outshouted and outspent by corporations or unions. Those who are against it should explain why they are siding with big money and secrecy. *