DISCLOSE Act shields Democrat-leaning groups from disclosure requirements

Unions are also subject to the new “stand by your ad” requirements. Under a 2002 campaign spending law, political candidates must state in television and radio advertisements they approved the message of their advertisements. Commonly, this statement reads, for example, “I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.”

The DISCLOSE Act takes this idea and runs with it.

A hypothetical television ad would read, “I’m Eli Pariser, the executive director of Moveon.org Political Action and George Soros approves this message.” Soros, in this case, would be a “significant funder” for the ad, or would have given money for the ad to run. Then, Soros would appear on screen himself.

If he were the only funder of the ad, Soros would say, “I’m George Soros. I helped pay for this message, and I approve it.”

If Soros was part of a group that helped fund the ad, he would say, “I’m George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros Fund Management helped pay for this message and Soros Fund Management approves it.”

The longest version of this hypothetical “stand by your ad statement” takes about 15 seconds to read. Many political spots are 15 seconds. For the most common, 30-second spot, the statement would eat up 50 percent of the ad time.

Critics say the bill will create chaos because it would come into the effect at a crucial point in the campaign cycle.

“What you’re going to have is mass confusion,” said Bill McGinley, a partner at Patton Boggs and former top campaign lawyer for Republicans.

McGinley noted that the DISCLOSE Act would come into effect 30 days after it was passed, but under federal law, it’s impossible for the Federal Election Commission to issue implementing regulations that fast for the law.

For new reporting requirements, the FEC probably won’t be able to even issue reporting forms, leaving would-be campaign spenders in the dark about how to report the newly required information. McGinley argues the confusion is a means for Democrats to intimidate corporations so they don’t spend on the 2010 election.

“Nobody’s going to be able to say for certain where the boundaries are,” McGinley said.

While some experts argue the law is on shaky legal ground, it does not include a provision for expedited review by federal courts. Instead, Democrats left a legal rats’ nest for courts to struggle to untangle. The bill assigns jurisdiction in a complicated way that is at odds with other campaign spending laws. McGinley and others predict the confusion will keep courts from hearing challenges to the law until well after November.