Brown to oppose campaign finance bill

By Matt Viser, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON – Senator Scott Brown said this morning that he will oppose a new campaign finance overhaul that would require further disclosures of campaign contributions, creating major hurdles for the prospects of the bill.

The Massachusetts Republican had been a key target for Senate Democrats who are hoping to pass the so-called DISCLOSE Act. The measure comes in response to a Supreme Court ruling that lifted restrictions on corporate and union funding of political advertisements.

But Brown argues that the new legislation would help Democrats, and would be implemented several months before crucial midterm elections.

“Rather than reform our campaign finance laws and provide increased transparency, the DISCLOSE Act advances the political agenda of the majority party and special interests in an effort to gain a tactical and political advantage little more than 100 days before an election,” Brown wrote in a letter to organizations that had lobbied him to support the bill.

The measure was approved last month in the House, but it has yet to gain the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, is the chief sponsor. Democrats currently control 58 votes, and have also been targeting two Maine Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

This afternoon, Brown came under criticism from the League of Women Voters, which has advocated for the campaign finance changes.

"It is very disappointing that Senator Brown is repeating the same old Washington excuses after just a few months in office," Elisabeth MacNamara, national president of the League of Women Voters, said in a statement. "He says the legislation is partisan. This is the oldest dodge in Washington. As a non-partisan group, we in the League of Women Voters say that this bill is not partisan and requires disclosure fairly from all."

Marcia Hirshberg, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, also criticized Brown.

"His leaders in Washington are opposed to transparency, but he campaigned with the people of Massachusetts as a different kind of politician," she said. "He can't represent both the old ways of Washington and the new spirit of government responsibility and transparency."

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.

Here is the complete text of Brown’s letter:

Dear Members of the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, and Public Citizen:

Thank you for your letter in which you urge me to support the DISCLOSE Act. As stated in your letter, my election to the U.S. Senate sent a message that the American people are tired of the politics-as-usual mentality, and want to restore real checks and balances in Washington. Unfortunately, the DISCLOSE Act does not do enough to require transparency, accountability and fair play. Therefore, I cannot support the DISCLOSE Act.

Rather than reform our campaign finance laws and provide increased transparency, the DISCLOSE Act advances the political agenda of the majority party and special interests in an effort to gain a tactical and political advantage little more than 100 days before an election. No matter how one feels about McCain-Feingold, at least that was an honest attempt to reform campaign finance laws that would not have gone into effect until after the next election cycle. The DISCLOSE Act does the opposite – it changes the rules in the middle of the game to provide a tactical advantage to the majority party.

Even more astonishing, this bill does not treat all organizations equally and does not apply to everyone. For example, not all the disclosure requirements apply to labor unions and other special interest groups – despite these groups being among the most active political organizations. Labor unions and their political action committees spent more than $450 million to help their allies in 2008, and they have already pledged to spend upwards of $100 million in the midterms. Yet they would be carved out of this legislation and not face the same regulations that would apply to everyone else.

A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency, accountability and would provide a level playing field to everyone.

Furthermore, this bill is being pushed when our country has almost double digit unemployment. We must return our focus to job creation.

I understand that your five groups support this legislation, and I respect your opinion, but more than 450 other groups from across the political spectrum – ranging from such ideological opposites as the National Right to Life Committee and the ACLU – oppose this bill. They recognize that it is based on partisan politics instead of sound policy. I could not agree more. When dealing with rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, we should look to adopt a higher standard than the one in this bill. The American people expect and deserve better.

Respectfully,

U.S. Senator Scott Brown