WASHINGTON — Foster Friess, the millionaire who funded outside groups supporting Rick Santorum’s presidential bid and is now helping to bankroll Romney’s Super PAC, thinks that he and other super wealthy donors should be able to give unlimited amounts of money directly to the candidate of their choice without any restrictions.

At the Faith & Freedom Conference last week, Friess bemoaned to ThinkProgress the complications in trying to donate: Citizens United, the famed Supreme Court decision, allowed anyone and any corporation to donate unlimited funds to a campaign, but they were forced to go through a third party that could not coordinate directly with the candidate.

Friess would like to change this. He believes that Super PACs are a superfluous step in the process of pouring millions of dollars into campaigns, and that people like himself and corporations overall should be able to write checks straight to the candidate:

FRIESS: I think all these little loopholes, and — you know, during the campaign I had to be so careful that I didn’t say certain things and keep the Super PAC and the campaign separate. So, I was paranoid to make sure that I followed the rules carefully. So, it’d be nice to get rid of that so that each person could give to the candidate of his choice as much money as he wanted and it was fully disclosed. So, I’m wholeheartedly behind Tim Pawlenty in that.

Watch it:

Citizens United shook the very bedrock of campaign finance by allowing unlimited donations to campaigns. Its effects are already clear: Sheldon Adelson, another funder in the vein of Friess, will soon have spent $71 million on supporting Republicans. Friess is not the first to advocate for direct unlimited contributions, either: Mitt Romney himself has pushed for it.

Unlimited contributions are harmful in that they give the very rich and corporations bigger leverage in how elections turn out, despite the fact that corporations cannot vote. Poor and middle class Americans are unable to pour in the kind of huge contributions that a corporation can, and so their needs often go unnoticed. But Friess may be correct in that direct donations would create more transparency — in the past four years, the amount of undisclosed spending has risen by 47 percent.

In a speech today to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took the stunning view that attempts to let voters know who is paying for political messages amounts to a “political weapon” aimed at intimidating political critics.

Though Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial 5-4 majority opinion Citizens United case specifically endorsed the idea of campaign finance disclosure, calling it “the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” McConnell embraced the partial-dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas — which argued that even that was unconstitutional.

McConnell told the group:

MCCONNELL: Now, to most people the idea of disclosure sounds perfectly reasonable. and throughout my career I, too, have consistently called for full and timely disclosure for all contributions to candidates and parties. Candidates and to parties. But what we’re talking about here is entirely different. What this bill calls for is government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. Because disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government. It’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies, and that should concern every one of us. Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, we’ll find other ways to do it.

Watch the video:

McConnell’s attack on the DISCLOSE Act is disingenuous. The bill would do nothing to force any “grassroots group” to disclose its donations unless it spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle. And as long as they keep a separate “segregated account” for their political expenditures, those groups would only have to disclose the source of the money being used for campaign spending.

And though McConnell attempts to draw a distinction between full disclosure of direct contributions to candidates and parties and disclosure of outside groups, his point makes little sense. The whole point of disclosure is allowing voters to know who is speaking and to evaluate the credibility of that person or interest. If disclosure were only about harassment and intimidation of political opponents, surely disclosure of donations to political candidates is just as likely to lead to such harassment of donors. And, of course, we have existing laws that make bonafide harassment a crime.

If McConnell really believes disclosure is nothing more than a political weapon, by logical extension his career-long backing of “full and timely disclosure for all contributions to candidates and parties,” must amount to an effort to expose his own critics to the same sort of harassment and intimidation.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been meeting with Democratic colleagues to discuss legislation to require disclosure for outside group political spending, he told The Hill yesterday.

“I’ve been having discussions with Sen. [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-R.I.] and a couple others on the issue,” the one-time campaign finance reform advocate said, noting talks have been ongoing for a couple of months and that he wants any legislation to be “balanced and address the issue of union contributions as well as other outside contributions.”

McCain, who famously co-authored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 with then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), has been noticeably AWOL on these issues since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

In 2010, after the high court ruled, McCain declared campaign finance reform dead and essentially washed his hands of the cause, telling CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “I don’t think there’s much that can be done.”

Without McCain’s help, Democrats created the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill — which sought to ban campaign expenditures by foreign-owned corporations and to require disclosure of the true sources of the money behind independent expenditures and electioneering communications — passed the House in June of 2010. When the bill came to the Senate, McCain refused to back the measure. Decrying provisions in it as “a bailout for the unions,” McCain attacked the bill as tougher on corporations than unions.

McCain joined a filibuster and the bill failed to achieve cloture by a single vote. Rather than offering amendments to the bill or working behind the scenes with sponsors to reach an agreement, McCain was the deciding vote to kill the bill without even allowing an up-or-down vote.

Now, with an even more closely-divided Senate and Speaker John Boehner running the House, the climb for any disclosure legislation will be steep.

If McCain is serious about rejoining the campaign finance reform fight, it is welcome news. But thanks to his earlier obstruction, he may find his efforts to be too little, too late.

A new Super PAC registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yesterday with a name that conveys its unusual mission: America’s Super PAC For The Permanent Elimination of America’s Super PACs (ASPFTPEASP).

Since the 2010 Citizens United and SpeechNow.org ruling created the independent-expenditure-only “Super PAC,” hundreds of such committees have registered. About a quarter of those Super PACs have reported making any independent expenditures, to date — supporting and/or opposing federal candidates.

But ASPFTPEASP appears to be the first committee formed with the mission of self-annihilation. The group’s website lists a two-pronged mission:

America’s Super PACs For the Permanent Elimination of America’s Super PACs will seek to raise awareness of the usage of Super PACs during elections and advise citizens on how to demand (from their respective representatives) that Super PACs be removed from politics.

America’s Super PAC For The Permanent Elimination of America’s Super PACs seeks to call for a constitutional convention where an amendment will be proposed to ensure that corporations are never considered to be people. Why? They’re not. Plain and simple.

Jonathan Rachowicz, who is listed on the group’s official filings as “High Treasurer,” told ThinkProgress that while his group its taking a comical approach, it intends to be a serious effort:

We’re going to fight fire with fire. If we can create a Super PAC with a ridiculous name that creates ridiculous ads, we can show people just how absurd the idea of a Super PAC really is. Once that happens we can really get some change.

Rachowicz said the group hopes to enlist a “high number of people” to compete with the rich who “have a high number of dollars.” Unlike other Super PACs which principally focus on the election or defeat of federal candidates, he says their top issue is “the way in which federal candidates are supported by unlimited funds, which can lead to corruption.”

With Super PACs already roundly despised — and polling showing more America’s believe in witchcraft than agree with the Citizens United ruling — this may be the one Super PAC with whom the vast majority of Americans can agree.

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) could be out of a job soon as the Government Accountability Board ordered a recall election this week after more than 900,000 Wisconsinites submitted signatures to hold a recall election this summer. With the election just two months away, outside spending groups are already scrambling to pour money into ads both for and against Walker. However, because of a quirk in Wisconsin campaign law, these groups can spend unlimited funds without disclosing where their money is coming from.

ThinkProgress spoke with attendees last weekend at the Americans For Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit in Milwaukee. Though all of them were Walker supporters, whose Republican Party has typically fought efforts to bring more transparency into campaign funding, the attendees were unanimous in their desire to require outside spending groups disclose where they get their funding. Watch a short compilation of their responses:

In a panel yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling “a combination of arrogance, naivete, and stupidity, the likes of which I have never seen.” And he predicted scandals would come from the combination of unlimited corporate contributions and lack of disclosure for many independent expenditures:

McCain: I promise you this. I promise you there will be huge scandals… because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it… we don’t know who, who contributed it, and there is too much corruption associated with that kind of money. There will be major scandals.
Moderator: John McCain never gives up. That’s the legend. Are you gonna give up on this?
McCain: No. But I’ve got to wait until we think that can pass legislation. And I’m not sure right now, frankly, that we could get it passed.

Watch the video:

With a Republican House largely unconcerned about the issue and a Republican minority able to block legislation through filibuster, McCain is probably correct in his assessment of the prospects of a legislative fix in the current Congress.

But McCain deserves a large share of the blame for the secret money in our political system.

In 2010, after the high court ruled, McCain declared campaign finance reform dead and essentially washed his hands of the cause, telling CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “I don’t think there’s much that can be done.”

Without McCain’s help, Democrats created the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill — which sought to ban campaign expenditures by foreign-owned corporations and to require disclosure of the true sources of the money behind independent expenditures and electioneering communications — passed the House in June of 2010.

When the bill came to the Senate, McCain refused to back the measure. Decrying provisions in it as “a bailout for the unions,” McCain attacked the bill as tougher on corporations than unions.

On September 24, Democratic efforts to end a Republican filibuster of the measure failed by a single vote. All 59 Senate Democrats voted to end debate, McCain voted no. Rather than offering amendments to the bill or working behind the scenes with sponsors to reach an agreement, McCain was the deciding vote to kill the bill without even allowing an up-or-down vote.

Perhaps he feared a tough 2010 primary, but when there was a chance to do something about disclosure, McCain opted to stand with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Chamber of Commerce rather than Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and the campaign finance reform movement. He has not even co-sponsored the disclosure-only DISCLOSE Act of 2012 introduced last week.

McCain’s grumbling comes as too little, too late and should be seen as what it is — little more than grandstanding.

ThinkProgress intern Zach Bernstein contributed to this report.

After the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC that corporations could spend unlimited funds from their corporate treasuries on independent political expenditures, some in Congress sought to give shareholders a say in deciding what what expenditures to make. While the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010, a bill by Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) to give corporate shareholders the right to vote on political expenditures, was endorsed by the House Financial Services Committee, it never came up for a vote on the House floor. Now, with Republicans in the majority in the House and able to filibuster any reform efforts in the Senate, some reformers have turned their focus to state legislatures.

A Connecticut legislative committee is currently considering a bill that could put the Nutmeg State at the forefront on the issue. A provision of House Bill 5528 would require a shareholder majority approve political spending. The bill would require:

Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, for corporations incorporated in this state, shareholders shall annually authorize a political activities budget for the corporation by a majority of votes representing all outstanding shares. For corporations not incorporated in this state, but registered to do business in the state or with shareholders residing in the state, shareholders in the state shall authorize spending related to the state’s elections. Fiduciaries voting on behalf of investors shall disclose such vote to investors.

Another provision in the draft bill would require that the corporations’ boards of directors approve each expenditure over $10,000.

The Connecticut Business & Industry Association, predictably, has opposed these rules, calling them “an intrusion into a corporation’s constitutionally protected right to free speech” and warning that the “regulatory hurdles” of allowing the people who actually own a corporation to have a say in the political speech of that business would “will not make Connecticut appealing as a place to do business.”

But as Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson University College of Law and an expert on election law, noted in her committee testimony, “though the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United conceptualized corporations as collections of individuals with joint First Amendment rights, it is unclear how shareholders can voice their opinions collectively without a consent process.” By passing this bill, she says, “Connecticut can be the mouse that roars, exhibiting national leadership in this post-Citizens United America.”

If corporate political expenditures are really about protecting free speech, as the 5-4 Supreme Court majority said, measures like this could make sure that the people who actually make up the corporation are the ones deciding whether to speak, how much to speak, and what to say.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s controversial 5-4 majority opinion in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case specifically endorsed the idea of campaign finance disclosure. “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations,” he wrote, adding that they ensure voters are informed enough about who is speaking to fully assess the content of the political message. But with a bitterly divided Federal Election Commission unable to issue regulations to enforce those principles, many political organizations have kept secret the names of the individuals and corporations funding their advertisements.

In 2010, a bill to expand disclosure passed the Democratic-controlled house of representatives, but failed by a single vote in the Senate as Republicans unified to filibuster the measure. That bill — the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act also contained provisions restricting
government contractors and foreign companies from political advertising.

Today, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and some of his Democratic colleagues unveiled a new attempt — the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 — focusing just on disclosure provisions. According to a fact sheet provided by Whitehouse’s office, the bill would require the following:

Any covered organization that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related disbursements during an election cycle [must] file a disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, and [must] file a new report for each additional $10,000 or more that is spent, detailing the amount and nature of each expenditure over $1,000 and the names of all of its donors who gave $10,000 or more.

Covered organizations include super PACs and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations. Additionally, the ads would have to list the top donors behind the message.

With outside groups spending millions and hugely unpopular, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says Democrats are hopeful that even in a more Republican congress, the bill might attract bipartisan support. The Senate’s rules committee, which Schumer chairs, will begin considering the bill at a hearing next week.

Like many of his Republican colleagues, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has indicated many times that he believes campaign finance disclosure — not limits — is the best way to ensure a just political system. With this new DISCLOSE Act, they will once again be forced to show whether they actually believe it.