Democrats Vow to Stop Campaign Finance Changes After Supreme Court Ruling

Hours after the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unrestricted amounts of money to influence political elections, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said they will hold hearings and introduce legislation in an effort to blunt the effect of the decision.

Schumer called the decision in Citizens United v. FEC "poisonous," "un-American," and "a threat to our democracy." He argued that lifting restrictions on companies' political activity means that the voices of corporations will overpower the voices of ordinary Americans in elections.

"It means that that robber barons can act like parasites," he said. "We will not let this decision go unchallenged."

In a 5-4 ruling Thursday, the high court said companies and labor unions can spend as freely as they like on election campaigns, the Associated Press reports. The law leaves in place rules that keep corporate donors from contributing directly to politicians.

Van Hollen, who chairs the Democrats' efforts to maintain control of the House, said that the only way to lessen the effect of the Citizens United decision on campaigns, other than passing a bill, is "a call to action to people around the country who do not want their democracy to be taken over by the biggest special interests in the country."

Republicans welcomed the ruling as a victory for free speech, which they said, includes political donations. Rep. Eric Cantor, the Minority Whip, told Politics Daily that spending on campaigns should be unrestricted as long as it is also transparent.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "For or too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process...The Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."

Several Democratic staffers told Politics Daily that Democratic candidates in 2010 will likely be hurt by the decision far more than Republican candidates. Although restrictions have been eliminated for both business and unions, corporations have historically given larger amounts of money than unions, and they've given to Republicans far more than to Democrats. "This will open the flood gates for Republican money," one aide said.

As the chairman of the Rules Committee, Schumer plans to hold hearings within the next several weeks and then introduce a bill to create new limits on the size and nature of corporate campaign activities. "Chris and I are committed to pursuing legislation that can re-implement the ban on corporate spending or, at the very least, modify it in a significant way," he said.

Schumer would need 60 votes in the Senate to consider his bill. He said he is seeking support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform and author of the McCain-Feingold bill that created new restrictions on campaign financing in 2003.

Republicans took exception to Schumer -- himself a prolific fundraiser of corporate and individual donations for the Democratic party -- leading an effort to restrict campaign giving. "The message from Chuck Schumer is clear," said Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "It's perfectly acceptable for Wall Street and other special interests to spend money participating in the political process, but only if that money is sent directly to the coffers of his campaign and other Senate Democrats."