Congressman On Campaign Finance Bill

  • Playlist
  • Download
  • Embed
    <iframe src="http://www.npr.org/player/embed/123126958/123126905" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

The Supreme Court recently lifted restrictions on the corporate financing of elections. But that decision has not made everyone happy. Democratic Congressman Mike Capuano of Massachusetts has introduced legislation that would require corporations to get a majority of shareholders to approve spending money on elections. He discusses the legislation.

: Require corporations to get approval of their political spending from their shareholders. Representative Capuano joins us from Boston, and tell us, how will this work?

MIKE CAPUANO: Quite simply, the shareholders, it's their money and I think that anybody who is spending money should ask those people who own that money what their opinion is. If the shareholders choose to be involved in political action, that's fine. Apparently the court has said that is legal and that's okay with me. That's all I want. I wouldn't want somebody reaching into my pocket and taking my money to be used for something I didn't want.

: Your bill, though, would require the shareholders to approve of, is it every expenditure of $10,000 or more?

CAPUANO: Yeah. But they could do it once a year. I mean, that's a proposal. I'm open to other proposals, maybe just once a year, maybe the numbers could be different, but the concept is what's important, is to have the shareholders be the ones who make the determination. If they want to use it for political purposes, that's fine by me.

: Is this bill that you've drafted one of those bills that's really an extremely effective press release to make a good point or do you have a shot, really, at getting this thing through the House?

CAPUANO: No way to tell. I hope it's not a press release. That's not the intent. I mean, there are a lot of discussions going on, as you pointed out at the top, that are on other things to do, and I may participate and supporting some of them or not. This one just struck me as something that there's no need to wait for it. It doesn't take on the Supreme Court decisions directly, doesn't require a constitutional amendment. And all it does is simply say something that most people have said from day one: You should have a say on how your money is spent.

: Have you given any thought to whether GM or Citi could advertise right now and take out a political ad?


: I'm intrigued by that thought.

CAPUANO: My guess is they could probably take out an ad right now and say we hate this idea or we love this idea.

: Speaking on behalf of our shareholders, the government of the United States of America.


CAPUANO: Oh, and plus, for me, there are another aspect, which I am also working on, but - it's transparency. I think that voters are actually intelligent enough to know that if they know the source of a commentary, that they can put that in context. And for - as a politician at the end of every ad, I have to say, and I approve this message, there's a reason for that. And that reason is so that people will know that Mike Capuano has approved the saying of whatever it is I just said. And I would argue the same thing should be done with political speech for others as well.

But I also think it's the transparency that's a problem. It's when you get Citizens for Good Governance say Mike Capuano is a great guy or Citizens for Good Governance say Mike Capuano is a terrible guy, call him and tell him he's no good. I would argue that the average voter would be best served to simply know who's really saying that. And if it's truly is Citizens for Good Governance, fine. But we all know that it's probably, you know, corporation X or business person X. And, again, not that they're not entitled to say it, but I think it's a little bit of false advertising to pretend something that you're not.

: So, you'd like to see political ads of that sort look a little bit more like the pharmaceutical ads with the side effects.

CAPUANO: Yes, absolutely.

: That the groups that have given to the group that's advertising against you would be listed, like, along with nausea and headaches.

CAPUANO: Right, very good analogy.


: And brittle bones and all of that.

CAPUANO: I think that would be fine. Again, I think voters are not as stupid as some people think they are. And I think they're preferably capable of cutting through, you know, the agendas that we all have, as long as they know where that agenda is coming from. So, if it's the XYZ corporation, well, if they're big polluters, then I personally wouldn't mind them taking ads on against me, you know. We're a big polluting company, and we hate Mike Capuano.


CAPUANO: Well, thank you very much.

: Well, Congressman Capuano, thanks a lot for talking with us about your proposal.

CAPUANO: Thank you.

: Mike Capuano, Democratic Representative from Massachusetts.

Copyright © 2010 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

NPR thanks our sponsors

Become an NPR sponsor

Support comes from