Reformers: Court ruling on campaign finance is a setback for reform

HARRISBURG - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturns federal limits on corporate campaign spending is viewed by reformers as a setback to efforts to strengthen Pennsylvania's weak campaign spending law.

In a split 5-4 decision, the nation's highest court Thursday knocked down restrictions on spending by corporations to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.

The Supreme Court ruling is viewed by many analysts as increasing the ability of businesses, labor unions and their lobbies to influence the outcome of elections with unlimited ad money.

"I think the potential is there to significantly alter the impact that corporations can have on the political process," said Dr. Terry Madonna, pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, on Friday. "The question is, would they use it?"

While the ruling applies to federal elections, its impact on state campaign spending laws and proposed reforms is being examined as well.

Pennsylvania is one of the few states that do not limit the size of non-cash contributions a candidate for state or local office can receive from an individual or political action committee. One of the few restrictions in place is a ban on cash contributions exceeding $100 from any individual, but no such limit exists for checks.

A state lawmaker thinks the court ruling will make an uphill fight to toughen state campaign spending laws even more difficult.

"It is not helpful at all for those of us who want to strengthen the public voice and limit special interests," said Rep. David Levdansky, D-39, Elizabeth, a long-time sponsor of legislation to put limits on state campaign contributions.

Pennsylvania needs to put reasonable limits on the size of political contributions made by wealthy individuals and special interests, he said.

Campaign finance bills have been introduced with little success in the General Assembly since the post-Watergate era.

Pennsylvania law bans direct campaign contributions from corporations, but allows for political action committees representing broader industry interests. Corporate officers make donations to a PAC, which in turn decides which candidates it wants to support with contributions.

A statewide organization calling for an end to judicial elections in Pennsylvania thinks the court ruling imperils the ban on direct corporation donations in state law.

The Supreme Court ruling will allow corporations to spend money directly from their coffers on elections without the need to establish a separate PAC, said Shira Goodman, deputy director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which favors merit selection of state judges. Her group has criticized the spending of millions of dollars in last year's election for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

"It's like the (U.S.) Supreme Court said `Let the money in," Goodman said.

The court ruling opens the door for business interests to seek influence at the ballot box on issues like a proposed state severance tax on natural gas production, said Dr. Christopher Borick, political science professor at Muhlenberg College, Allentown. Energy interests have long been major political contributors, he said.

A study of PAC spending in 2007-08 by the Pennsylvania Business Council found that labor unions outspent business interests and political parties on state and local elections. The study examined $126 million in contributions made by more than 1,200 PACs. Elections for legislative seats, statewide row offices and Philadelphia mayor were held during this period.

Top-ranked PACs were Local Union No. 98, IBEW, Philadelphia, $6.8 million; Laborers District Council, Philadelphia, $3.6 million; teacher-oriented Pennsylvania State Education Association, $2.1 million; Republican party-affiliated Pennsylvania Future Fund, $2 million; and LAWPAC, the trial lawyers PAC, $1.8 million, according to the PEG study.

Contact the writer: rswift@timesshamrock.com

Sign up for Text Alerts

Sign up for e-mail newsletters