BROOKE GLADSTONE: Remember Citizens United? That was the controversial 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision back in January that drastically changed the rules for how corporations, unions and nonprofits can spend money during an election. The high court decided that they may buy ads explicitly supporting a political candidate and that those ads may air at any point before an election. Supporters of the decision called it a victory for free speech. Opponents said it opened the door for corporations to decide elections. This week the House passed H.R. 5175 or the "DISCLOSE" Act to counter the Court's ruling. The bill forces corporations, unions and nonprofits that use their funds for political ads to disclose the names of their top donors. But the "DISCLOSE" Act has come under attack, not just from those who oppose it on principle, but because House Democrats agreed to exempt the National Rifle Association and some other large nonprofits from the requirement that they disclose the identities of their top donors. The Democrats agreed, because if they didn't the NRA threatened to kill the bill. Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen is the main author of the "DISCLOSE" Act. He says despite the exemption for the NRA and others, the bill serves a crucial purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: We believe voters have a right to know who is paying for the ads that they're watching, and this bill would require lots of disclosure. It also prohibits foreign-controlled corporations from spending any money to influence American political elections and prohibits large recipients of Federal dollars, like major Federal contractors or big banks that receive taxpayer monies under TARP, like AIG, from taking that money and recycling it back into political advertisements.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: How much of the bill is a response to the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, the bill is a response to a very radical decision in Citizens United where the court overthrew decades of established law to find that corporations would be treated like individuals for the purpose of spending money on campaigns. Before that, corporations and unions were prohibited from spending money directly out of their general treasuries. After the Supreme Court's decision they could all receive and spend unlimited amounts of corporate money in campaigns. They're barred from doing that under this bill.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So now let's talk about the controversy, the exemption for the National Rifle Association. In what way is the NRA exempt and in what way isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: There is a provision that says if you have 500,000 or more dues paying members you don't have to do all the individual reporting under the bill.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: The exemption only involves naming the names of individual donors. And you didn't mention this: Would the head of any corporation or any public interest group who produces an ad have to come on at the end of it and say, my name is thus and such, head of this corporation, and I approve this ad, as now happens in, uh, candidate ads?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Yes, the organizations would have to identify themselves and the CEO or senior representative of that organization would have to stand by the ad. For all these reasons, the groups that have dedicated themselves to campaign finance reform and transparency —The League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Democracy 21 — strongly endorse the bill, even with the adjustments.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, what we've read everywhere is that the NRA would have lobbied against this bill and killed it, if this exemption had not been made. So what were they afraid of?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: They did not want to disclose those who made donations to their organizations, and the argument given by the large — organizations with citizen members were, look, we're not going to fool anybody as to who we are. Whether you love us or hate us, the voter understands who the Sierra Club is and that they're an environmental group, or the NRA, that they're a gun group.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: You know, even with this exemption the NRA has publicly said it doesn't support the "DISCLOSE" Act, it's just agreed not to publicly criticize the lawmakers that vote for the bill. Was it worth it, given all the flack that you've taken for these exemptions?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, the fact of the matter is that this bill remains the strongest piece of transparency and public disclosure bill the Congress has ever passed.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Do you think the NRA could have killed it?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: What we do know is that when we have legislation here to give the District of Columbia representative voting rights, they did. And the other groups opposed to this legislation would have liked nothing better than to see the NRA do their work in defeating this bill.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Congressman, thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Chris Van Hollen is a Democratic congressman from Maryland. The NRA took a lot of heat, mostly from conservatives for agreeing to sit this one out in exchange for the exemption. Critics say the NRA should have used its lobbying power against the bill. The NRA declined to speak to us, but it has recorded this voicemail which outlines its position on H.R. 5175:
NRA SPOKESMAN [VOICEMAIL RECORDING]: We'd like to set the record straight. We have never said we would support any version of this bill. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would have effectively put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' right to privacy and freedom of association by forcing us to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and internet ads and mailings. We refused to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our association.
[MUSIC UP AND UNDER]