West Virginia Legislature tries to trump the Constitution
by admin on 26/02/10 at 9:08 am
MetroNews
By Hoppy Kercheval
February 26, 2010
When it comes to campaign spending laws the West Virginia Legislature never seems to learn. Twice it has passed laws aimed at controlling election spending and both times they have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
Now, lawmakers are at it again. This year a group of Democrats is pushing legislation (HB 4646) aimed reinstituting restrictions on spending that were wiped out by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. (The bill is on second reading in the House)
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court in a 5-4 decision said that under the First Amendment election spending by corporations cannot be limited.
Yet, here comes the West Virginia Legislature trying to do just that. The bill attempts to put in place a range of obstacles that would make it extremely difficult for a West Virginia corporation to exercise its First Amendment right of free speech.
The legislation says that if a corporation spends over $10,000 in an election it must first get approval from over half (50 percent plus one) of all shareholders. The bill says “Shareholders not casting votes shall not count toward affirmative authorization under this chapter.”
Does that mean a corporation has to track down everyone who has even a single share in an effort to meet the threshold? What about corporations that don’t have shareholders? Does the vote of a person with 10,000 shares count the same as a person with 10 shares?
The proposal also discriminates against in-state corporations. Under this bill, Budweiser could run unlimited ads in a West Virginia campaign without shareholder approval because it’s based out of state, while a West Virginia-based corporation has to meet this requirement.
The Iowa Legislature is trying to pass similar legislation. Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said of their attempts, “The Supreme Court’s decision allowed for disclosure of independent expenditures. It did not permit states to throw up a regulatory gauntlet of overly-burdensome shareholder regulations to force companies to run through before they are allowed to speak on urgent political issues.”
Also, the proposed West Virginia law does not cover union spending. Labor organizations could engage in unlimited spending for or against a particular candidate or issue without getting membership approval while corporations must seek shareholder permission.
So, under the West Virginia bill, unions and corporations would be treated very differently, which may well violate the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection.
