With federal efforts to regulate money politics lacking, it’s up to state and local governments to take action. The recent article, “Defend Our Democracy ordinance means limiting big money and foreign influence in elections can start right in St. Petersburg”, is by Ellen L. Weintraub, a member of the Federal Election Commission writing exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times. Here is an excerpt:

In a nutshell: Citizens United blew open the floodgates to allow corporations to spend unlimited sums in our elections. But ironclad federal law prohibits foreign nationals from directly or indirectly spending in our elections at any level. So it’s still illegal for foreign nationals to contribute through any sort of corporation. But when a corporation spends in politics, no one is asking, “Does any of your money come from foreign nationals?”

Under the Defend Our Democracy ordinance, St. Petersburg will begin to ask corporations that question. Any corporation that wants to spend money to influence St. Petersburg elections must certify that it is not “foreign-influenced,” that is, either (1) more than 5 percent owned by a single foreign national, (2) more than 20 percent owned by more than one foreign national, or (3) a corporation in which foreign-national owners call the shots on its political activities.

This is a simple, common-sense requirement, one fully backed up by federal law. It is the kind of reform that is only happening at the local level in the current political climate. It is the kind of disclosure that has been upheld in court over and over again. It is the kind of law that will protect the citizens of St. Petersburg and bolster their faith in their elections.

According to Ballotpedia:

The St. Petersburg City Council is the city’s primary legislative body. It is responsible for adopting the city budget, approving mayoral appointees, levying taxes, and making or amending city laws, policies and ordinances. The widget below automatically displays information about upcoming city council meetings.

The Center for Public Integrity, one of the country’s ‘oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations’ summed up the problem with Citizens United in an article titled, “The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters: Nonprofits or political parties?” by John Dunbar. Take a look:

The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”