news-record.com

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that corporations could spend directly on campaign ads has politicians across the political spectrum wondering what it could mean for their re-election chances.

That’s particularly true for those who have become a thorn in the side of one interest or another.

“I’ve made a real nuisance of myself to the most financially powerful industry in the United States,” said Rep. Brad Miller, a Raleigh Democrat who represents parts of Greensboro and Rockingham County.

For the better part of his time in Congress, Miller has been pushing for stricter regulation of banks and the financial industry. And over the past year, he has become a go-to source for journalists looking for a pithy quote lambasting the banks.

Until last week’s ruling, corporations had to funnel their political speech through limited channels. Now, as long as they report their spending and don’t collude with one candidate or another, companies can spend directly on campaign ads or pool their money through affiliate groups to aim at opponents.

Does this mean we might see some bank-sponsored ads targeting Miller or boosting his opponents?

“I have no idea what they might do,” Miller said. He said that pushing financial industry regulations already was difficult under the old system and acknowledged the reforms he favors face an uncertain future in the Senate after getting trimmed and tweaked in the House.

“It was already David against Goliath and the Supreme Court just took David’s sling away,” Miller said.

It’s worth noting that this particular David comes from a congressional district that is considered a relatively safe seat for Democrats.

Other congressmen have expressed concerns about the ruling and good government campaigners have urged lawmakers to adopt reforms that blunt its effect.

Miller suggested states may adopt changes to their incorporation laws that would limit powers of corporate persons.

Coble in stitches

Rep. Howard Coble provided some legislative blocking for the National Football League last week, although his motives had more to do with textiles than touchdowns.

The NFL is involved in a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the result of a lawsuit by an apparel maker saying that the league and its 32 teams shouldn’t be able to “collude” to offer exclusive contracts. American Needle alleges the league is violating antitrust exemption and that the law should treat its teams as separate businesses.

Coble, a Greensboro Republican, disagreed during a judiciary subcommittee hearing.

“The NFL would not function as a marketing entity if some, or all, of its teams refused to license their trademarks collectively,” Coble said in a statement.

“And the league’s value would be diminished because not all of the teams would be well-marketed and because some teams might choose to license their products for goods that do not represent the best interests of the league and its brand.”

Why throw this flag? It turns out that VF Corp., a Greensboro-based company, owns VF Imaging, a Tennessee corporation that has one of the exclusive contracts with the NFL.

“The VF Corporation has a very significant interest in its business with NFL Properties – manufacturing NFL jerseys, and as you can imagine, we are very interested in today’s hearing,” Coble said.

Votes

The Senate took two recorded votes last week. Of interest was an measure to end the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The measure failed on a 53-45 vote.

Sen. Richard Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, voted for it.

Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, was recorded as “not voting.”

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com