Groups Use Citizens United as the Vehicle to Pass Public Financing

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; [1] "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 [2] and as S. 752 [3] 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. [4]

Mother Jones [5] 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.