An interesting story this morning chronicles the fear corporations have of free speech -- their own:
After a landmark Supreme Court ruling this year freed executives to spend unlimited corporate cash on campaigns, some predicted that businesses would flood television airwaves with pro-industry political ads -- but that just hasn't happened yet. Image-sensitive corporations are still trying to make sure that, if they jump into 2010 politicking, they do so as anonymously as possible, according to Republican political operatives and trade group leaders.
... companies have told their advisers and GOP fundraisers that they are interested in helping finance ads to spotlight proposed regulations and lawmakers they don't like. These companies include firms on Wall Street and in the energy sector opposed to stricter regulations as well as fast-food franchise owners fearful of being forced to unionize their shops.
They just don't want to be singled out -- or have their corporate logo attached.
The article is pegged to legislation called the Disclose Act, proposed by Democrats (but also supported by some moderate Republicans, including Delaware Congressman Mike Castle) that would force corporate CEOs to appear at the end of advertisements they fund to endorse the message, mandate that corporate logos are included in ads, and make coalitions display the top five donors behind a message campaign.
The corporations argue this law would have a chilling affect on their speech. It's telling, of course, that these executives feel being associated with their own political message would cause people to dislike their brand. That's is, after all, part of the responsibility of public political speech: You need to stand by your positions. Frankly, it's almost astonishing to me that after their victory in Citizens United gave them access to unlimited spending on political ads, corporations are now trying to gain unlimited, anonymous spending on political advertisements.
-- Tim Fernholz
