Jan 31, 2010 -- Daytona Beach News-Journal: Court Ruling May Not Change Fla. Campaigns
By: Ron Hurtibise

The death knell for democracy? Or a vital protection for First Amendment rights?

Those two views represent the extremes of the wide range of reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Jan. 21 that clears the way for corporations and unions to directly finance advertising that supports or opposes candidates for federal office.

Yet many experts believe the impact might not be as tumultuous as critics fear -- as long as authorities enforce the ruling's demand to require disclosure of the funding sources for political ads.

One reason it might not be a dam-breaker, some reasoned, is the dam is already broken.

Opinions of the ruling are largely split across partisan lines, with Democrats complaining the ruling destroys a century of established law barring direct corporate involvement in politics and Republicans hailing it as a victory for free speech.

One experienced political fundraiser in Daytona Beach doubts voters in this area will see much change in campaigns in local congressional districts.

The prospect of Procter & Gamble Co. and Coca-Cola running ads for John Mica or Suzanne Kosmas is doubtful, said Charlie Lydecker, regional vice president for Brown & Brown Insurance and a prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates in local, state and federal races.

Retail companies likely won't risk alienating large numbers of voters, and candidates will resist being publicly tied to "big money," Lydecker said. "Campaigns don't want disproportionate amounts of money coming from one corporation and having opponents cast them as a toadie for that corporation," he said.

He doubts two of the area's major donors -- his firm and International Speedway Corp. -- would independently fund political ads for candidates they support. His points are bolstered by recent history in Florida -- one of 26 states where corporate-funded political advertising has been legal. Efforts to find a record of a political ad directly funded by a for-profit company or an expert who remembers one were unsuccessful.

A search of expenditures in the state's campaign finance database turns up very few identified as "independent expenditures," and, of them, no examples of spending on advertising by for-profit corporations.

That's not to say state and local political advertising isn't already awash in corporate money. The Supreme Court ruling upheld a ban on contributions to federal candidates. But Florida has long allowed direct corporate donations to candidates, political committees, parties and trade associations.

And those groups purchase millions of dollars in television, radio, print, Web and direct-mail ads every election season.

The ads carry the name of the organization -- think "FARMPAC" and "Florida Dental PAC" -- but not the names of the donor companies.

And that's the way most companies like it, said Aubrey Jewett, a University of Central Florida political science professor. "It might be they want to keep a step between themselves and the raw politics that keep people upset and excited."

Nationally, well-known companies will be unlikely to attach their brands to candidates for the same reason Michael Jordan famously declined to get involved in politics, said Bradley A. Smith of Capital University Law School. The NBA star and all-around corporate pitchman explained, " 'Republicans buy things, too,' " Smith said.

LAWS, RULES STILL TO COME

The Federal Elections Commission is reviewing the Supreme Court decision to determine how its rules must be revised, spokeswoman Judith Ingram said. Opponents of corporate campaign funding hope the new rules include strict standards requiring disclosure of funding sources as called for in the order written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and stipulating that corporations making independent expenditures cannot coordinate their messages with candidates. Coordination would make the ads contributions and not independent expenditures, the court said.

Campaign finance reform advocates are asking Congress to consider ways to dampen the potential impact of the ruling. Ideas include requiring shareholders to approve spending on political ads, preventing such ads by companies with federal contracts, and preventing political advertising by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.

One of the most important questions facing the elections commission is how and to what extent to require disclosure of companies that donate to third-party groups that fund political ads, said Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel and FEC program director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington D.C.

The ruling should have no impact on Florida's campaign finance laws, said Jennifer Davis, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of State.

State law requires any corporation that spends more than $100 on an independent expenditure to file a disclosure notice to the state. If a company wants to spend more than $500, it must form a political committee subject to all the reporting requirements of political committees, she said.

Yet, a search of registered political committees in the division's campaign finance database shows only 13 designated as "independent expenditure committees." They include individuals, trade associations, political committees and a union. None is a for-profit corporation.

Ryan said "largely ineffective" disclosure laws in the 26 states that allow independent expenditures make it difficult to know whether corporate money has corrupted politics in those states.

A 2007 study by the National Institute on Money and State Politics (followthemoney.org) found just five states required effective disclosure of independent expenditures. Though Florida requires disclosure, reports are rare and not easily searchable in its campaign finance reform database, the study found.

CORPORATE POLITICS AS USUAL?

The myriad ways corporations can invest in elections makes Jewett skeptical the Supreme Court ruling will be any kind of game-changer.

"Everybody knows in Tallahassee they've got a ton of influence already, and at the local level for sure," he said. "This is just one more weapon in an arsenal that's already stock full."

Ed Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mt.-based National Institute on Money and State Politics, said companies will spend on local political advertising if it makes financial sense to them. And citizens will have to be more aware of those motivations, he said.

A company that wants to build a landfill, for example, will spend money to advertise for candidates the company believes will help it through the permitting process because they would be able to turn around and charge higher landfill fees, Bender said.

Lydecker says, "I believe that in selected races, when the stakes are high, people do crazy things."

Jewett and Smith think companies most likely to advertise for candidates will be smaller, closely held and often still controlled by the founder who is "more ideological and willing to give," Smith said.

Writing on the financial Web site, seekingalpha.com, Jonathan Bernstein predicts the ruling will create a boon for media and advertising companies.

A Needham & Co. analyst predicts CBS-TV stations could rake in an extra $50 million, according to a Jan. 25 Los Angeles Times story. Companies that own radio stations, cable networks and billboards also stand to gain if corporations decide to jump into politics, the story said.

Locally, Rhonda Hodges, co-owner of Nerve Marketing on Mason Avenue, sees the beleaguered advertising industry pushing corporations to get involved.