Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down campaign finance rules it said violated the free speech of corporations. President Obama warned the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests” in Washington. Others hailed it a repudiation of flawed, Constitutionally-dubious regulations. We examine possible legislative responses, and the role of money in American politics.

Guests

  • Chris Van Hollen U.S. House of Representatives (D-Maryland, 8th District); Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
  • Ellen Miller Co-founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation; founder, Center for Responsive Politics; and Founder, Public Campaign
  • Roger Pilon Vice President for Legal Affairs and Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the CATO Institute

U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD, 8th District) explains what Congressional critics of last month’s Supreme Court campaign finance decision are looking to accomplish in a legislative response to the ruling. Requiring CEOs to identify themselves in political ads their companies have sponsored and preventing large corporations from using taxpayers’ dollars for campaign contributions are two of the main measures Van Hollen says would temper the ruling.

Kojo says he is flattered by the Washington CityPaper’s exhortation for him to throw his hat into the 2010 mayoral race (January 20, 2010). But he’s not interested. Still, the following attack ad surfaced today during our discussion of campaign finance.

Related Links

Topics + Tags

Most Recent Shows