The LA Times reports on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's growing grassroots initiative, Friends of the U.S. Chamber, which "has begun to rival those of the major political parties, funded by record-setting amounts of money raised from corporations and wealthy individuals."

"The chamber has signed up some 6 million individuals who are not chamber members and has begun asking them to help with lobbying and, soon, with get-out-the-vote efforts in upcoming congressional campaigns."

According to the article, the group's successful fundraising can be attributed to the administration's legislative initiatives and the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations may now directly advocate for the election of candidates for federal office. "Industries that are the most directly affected by Washington policies and regulations -- pharmaceuticals, for example -- have always spent lavishly on lobbying and politics. But many others have held back, deterred by concern over violating the complex laws on campaign spending and by a general sense that putting money into politics might open companies to criticism."

As predicted, corporations will increasingly contribute money to the chamber, which then produce ads targeting candidates without disclosing the identity of the donors. Inevitably, the article suggests this system "suggests a rocky road for legislation to require more transparency."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) announced a summary, presented as a "framework," of the legislation they plan to introduce to curtail the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Their extensive response includes a ban on expenditures by foreign interests, as well as corporations that have federal contracts and those that received funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Corporations also include 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations. They call for new disclosure rules on corporate spending, both to the government and to shareholders.

Specific provisions in the Schumer-Van Hollen proposal include :

• Prohibiting corporations from spending money on U.S. elections if they have a foreign ownership of 20% or more, a majority of their board of directors is foreign principals, or their U.S. operations are under the control of a foreign entity.
• Banning government contractors from making political expenditures, including TARP recipients.
• Requiring CEOs to appear on camera in political ads to say they "approve this message."
• Corporations that want to spend money on campaign related ads would have to set up separate "political broadcast spending" accounts. All funds spent or transferred from the accounts must be publicly reported to the Federal Election Commission.
• All political expenditures made by a corporation have to be disclosed within 24 hours on its website, and disclosed to shareholders in quarterly reports and in the corporation's annual report.
• Requiring federally registered lobbyists to disclose information on all campaign expenditures over $1,000.
• Banning coordination between a corporation and candidates on ads referencing Congressional candidates within 90 days of the primary through the general election. For all federal elections, at any time, coordination would be prohibited when the ads promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate.

According to CQ, during a press event, Schumer "pledged that the disclosure proposals in the bill will expose corporate and union financiers using pass-through political organizations and 'AstroTurf' lobbying outfits to obscure their political outlays. 'We will drill down so that the ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed,' he said." Reportedly Schumer and Van Hollen will introduce their legislation the week after the Presidents Day recess.

Almost a week has passed since the Supreme Court issued the very significant ruling in the Citizens United case. There has been nonstop commentary and discussion of the possible ramifications. During a news conference, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) announced plans to hold hearings and introduce legislation to curtail the effects of the decision. One suggestion from the lawmakers would require shareholders to vote before a corporation could spend money in elections.

Another option would prohibit corporations that do business with the federal government from using corporate funds to make independent expenditures. For example, contributions or expenditures could be limited for companies that have contracts or subcontracts with the government, or government grantees, and their affiliates. Congress may try to ban corporate contributions to nonprofits that engage in election communications, or corporations could be required to disclose contributions made to another incorporated entity (such as a 501(c)(4)) for the purposes of making a political expenditure. Other options include strengthening disclaimer and disclosure rules, requiring companies to more clearly identify themselves in the ads.

In addition to those already introduced, such as legislation to create an optional public financing system for congressional elections (the Fair Elections Now Act), more legislative responses to the ruling are still being formulated.

In the House HR 4522 has been introduced to, "apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals." Under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited and is unaffected by the ruling. However, some suggest that the prohibition on campaign expenditures by foreign nationals could be vulnerable. According to Politico, President Obama will urge Congress during the State of the Union address to pass legislation restricting foreign corporations from getting involved in federal elections.

Politico, also reports that, "the White House doesn't appear to consider the FEC or the public financing overhauls as immediate priorities. Nor does it appear likely to embrace a public financing system for congressional campaigns."

A more problematic legislative prospect would tighten rules prohibiting outside groups from coordinating ads with candidates. Corporations may now directly advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has not yet finalized a definition of coordinated expenditures. The FEC is currently undertaking a rulemaking to reconsider what precisely constitutes coordination.

Before the Court even issued its ruling Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced five bills in anticipation of an unfavorable decision. For example, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, H.R. 4432, would require public companies to tell the Securities and Exchange Commission when they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their services. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act, H.R. 4433, would apply antitrust laws to a political committee established and run by a corporation.

For more on what nonprofits and political leaders are doing to address the Court decision, read this latest Watcher article.

Many fear that if the Supreme Court decides in the Citizens United case to overturn limitations on corporate expenditures in political campaigns, it will transform elections with a deluge of corporate and union money. In preparation, groups are using this prospect as a way to advocate for election reform legislation, specifically public financing in House and Senate races.

An event at the Center for American Progress, co-sponsored by the groups Common Cause and Public Campaign, discussed the Supreme Court case and using it as a vehicle to promote public financing of congressional elections. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), along with Rep. John Larson (D-CT), spoke at the event to promote their legislation, the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA.) Durbin said; "I don't know that we've reached the level in the Senate or in the nation where people are going to demand this of us.... But if they think that the Supreme Court has tipped the scales so dramatically that they don't have a fighting chance any more, they may be open to this."

Their bill has been introduced in the House as H.R. 1826 and as S. 752 in the Senate, and would create a voluntary public financing system for congressional candidates. Participants would be required to raise a minimum amount of money from a certain number of in-state donors who could contribute no more than 100 dollars.

In the House, the bill has 119 cosponsors. "The best place that I go to enlist people for this program is down to the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] as they're dialing for dollars," Larson said. However, such support for reform will be harder in the Senate.

You can watch video coverage from the event here.

Mother Jones reports that Common Cause and Public Campaign are planning an aggressive media effort considering, "reporters will likely call a bad decision in Citizens United another sign that campaign finance reform is a fool's errand." The groups' strategy includes "spending $4 million dollars over six months to put a positive spin on a negative Citizens United decision and push for public financing of congressional elections."

How the Court will rule remains unknown, and many still predict a decision before the end of the year.