Litigation

Corporations Treading Lightly after ?Citizens United??

By Peter Hardin

Corporations love branding. Except when it comes to putting their corporate logo on a political ad, as some advocates would like to see in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

That’s one of the principal messages of a Washington Post article headlined, “Political ads are tough sell for image-conscious corporations.”

The article doesn’t offer revelations. But in discussing some corporations’ desire to wade into the political fray versus their weighing possible adverse effects, it may provide insight into tensions over proposed new disclosure legislation.

Some companies have made it clear they’re interested in spotlighting proposed regulation or lawmakers that they dislike. “They just don’t want to be singled out — or have their corporate logo attached,” the article states.

Corporate leaders “recognize they have this newfound freedom. They want to exercise it, but not in a way that will antagonize members of Congress or customers or employees,” said Stefan Passantino, a campaign finance law expert. He also said, “[I]f corporations are forced to put their corporate logo on it, most won’t do it.”

Congress is considering legislation requiring corporations to identify themselves in political ads they pay for, and to disclose their expenditures to shareholders and the public.

Eugene Scalia, a lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was not happy with a proposal that chief executives must appear in their companies’ political advertising. The requirement targets risk-averse managers, he said. “The so-called ’stand-by-your-ad’ provisions are attempted to chill, that is discourage, corporations from speaking,” Scalia said.

The blockbuster Citizens United decision threw out congressionally approved restraints and permitted unlimited corporate spending on elections.

When the high court issued its ruling, Justice at Stake said the decision posed grave dangers to America?s elected state courts. You can read the JAS statement by clicking here, or click here to see the JAS amicus brief in the case; you can visit Gavel Grab to learn how state legislators and executive branch officials have responded.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 01, 2010 (boomark / email).