Iowa leaders studying implications of Supreme Court ruling in campaign finance case

DES MOINES – A U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued Thursday that struck down a ban on corporate spending on elections has leaders in Iowa struggling to understand what it might mean for Iowa's prohibition on corporate contributions.

 That ruling allows corporations to spend their money to advocate for or against candidates.

“This is a major, major sea change in campaign finance,” said Charles Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, which enforces Iowa campaign finance laws.

 Smithson said he believed Iowa could still ban corporations from directly contributing to candidates for state office.

“The problem is that creates a extremely confusing situation for the public and the regulated community, and we still have the issue with a lot of money flowing into Iowa campaigns,” Smithson said.

That money would be from corporations spending on advertising, rather than directly into campaign coffers.

Democratic leaders in the Iowa Legislature expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling on Iowa's ban on corporate campaign contributions and said they were waiting for advice from the Iowa attorney general's office.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the court's decision found unconstitutional part of Iowa's statute that prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures expressly for or against a candidate.

“The court's decision does not specifically address direct corporate contributions to candidates' campaign committees, but the rationale of today's decision raises questions in that realm, and we will review those questions over the next few days,” Miller said in a statement.

 House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said if they need to take action to keep Iowa's ban on corporate contributions in place, they'll move quickly.

“We don't want this to be the wild, wild west … of politics where people are having unlimited corporate contributions in the middle of session,” McCarthy said.

            Smithson is advising legislative leaders to tell their members not to accept contributions from corporations. He also suggested that at the least, lawmakers will need to change Iowa's laws to make it clear that “independent expenditures” by corporations to advocate for or against candidates are permitted.

Thursday's ruling brought deeply diverging views from Iowa's congressional delegation.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, hailed the decision.

“The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and employers to express their viewpoints on political issues,” King said in a statement. “Today's Supreme Court decision affirms the Bill of Rights and is a victory for liberty and free speech.”

In contrast, U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, said the court's ruling inflated the speech rights of “large, faceless corporations to the same level of hard-working, every day Americans.”

He proposed a constitutional amendment restricting corporations and labor unions from using operating money or general treasury funds to bankroll federal campaign advertisements.

“The legislation I introduced today will prevent the Wall Street corporations that received billions in taxpayer bailout dollars from turning around and pouring that same money into candidates that will prevent financial regulation on their industry,” Boswell said in a statement. 

Iowa Republican leaders brushed off the idea that the ruling could help their party.

House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, pointed out that other types of businesses organizations can spend on Iowa elections.

“I'm not sure that there's any new competitive advantage that we picked up,” Paulsen said.