Colo. legislators looking to beef up campaign-finance laws

By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post
03/24/2010
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14745422

Just a day after the state Supreme Court allowed corporations and unions more leeway in political giving, lawmakers were looking to add greater disclosure and possibly new limitations for those entities in state campaign-finance laws.

Monday's state court decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court decision in January allowing corporations and unions to spend money directly advocating for or against candidates and to buy advertisements in the run-up to primary and general elections.

State Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, wants to close reporting loopholes she said already exist and ensure that any new forms of spending are properly disclosed ahead of an important election.

November's outcome will largely determine how political districts are drawn for the following decade.

"We cannot go into the 2010 election cycle with unbridled and undisclosed flows of union and corporate cash," Carroll said. "I think the public in general is uncomfortable with large amounts of undisclosed money."

Carroll, House Majority Leader Rep. Paul Weissmann and Secretary of State Bernie Buescher are looking at best practices among other states and meeting to craft Colorado's rules and laws accordingly.

A draft could be ready as early as next week.

Other states and plans

Nine other states are either bolstering or implementing new disclosure rules for corporations and unions, and four others are trying to require a vote of shareholders before corporations can enter the political arena, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Buescher spokesman Rich Coolidge said some of the changes may be possible through new rules instead of new laws.

"At this point we're still reviewing the decision," he said. "We're going to be looking pretty closely at the disclosure requirements and to make sure the public can see who is spending money, on what and how much."

On Carroll's list are revisions to the ways limited-liability corporations can spend money on advertisements. She worries about a proliferation of shell companies that corporations concerned about their public images could spend through to anonymously affect elections.

She's considering legislation to require such ad-buyers to disclose their parent companies or their top 10 donors.

Under current law, the limited-liability companies are required to report which of their partners contribute only if the entity gives directly to a candidate.

Reaching too far?

Republican elections lawyer Ryan Call said he's not opposed to more disclosure, although he's leery of reaching too far into the affairs of private companies.

He said he's more troubled by Carroll's consideration of provisions requiring a shareholders vote before allowing a corporation to purchase television, radio, print or direct-mail advertisements.

"It would be an effective censorship of political speech," said Call, pointing out the logistical difficulties of a national corporation gaining approval to spend in local Colorado races. "The effect of it would be censorship."

Call is representing a group of trade organizations and corporations challenging state rules that bar direct contributions to candidates, which is still banned under Colorado law.

Printable Version of this Page