Local firms cautious after campaign ruling

Rather than reveling in their new political freedom, most local companies are taking a cautious approach to Thursday's Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of campaign-finance law.

Michael Wood, spokesman for Peco Energy Co., said the company's lawyers were still studying the court's decision, which liberated corporations and unions to spend unlimited money to buy ads for or against candidates.

"From Peco's standpoint, we don't anticipate a big change in our current practices," Wood said. He said Peco did not do much direct advertising on behalf of candidates.

Thomas P. Golembeski, spokesman for the Philadelphia refiner Sunoco Inc., said the ruling "does appear to give companies greater flexibility in expressing political views." But until the company evaluates the ruling, "it's difficult to say how it will influence Sunoco's participation in the political process."

The court ruled that corporations and unions could spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The ruling said that restrictions on ads just before elections violated their free-speech rights.

Robert A. Weinberger, a lawyer and retired lobbyist for several companies, including H&R Block, said he expected the decision to affect state and local races more than federal contests.

"It's possible it will open the door to abuses," said Weinberger, who serves as chairman of the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks corporate political spending on its Web site, OpenSecrets.org.

"While some are led by executives who have a political or ideological point of view that they extend to their corporation, most are shy or cautious about making their company's involvement highly visible," Weinberger said.

Comcast Corp., which OpenSecrets.org lists as the top federal campaign contributor in Pennsylvania in recent years, declined to comment on the ruling, spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said.

Some companies regarded the new freedom as a curse.

About 40 executives from companies including Quaker Chemical Corp., ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, toymaker Hasbro, and Delta Air Lines sent a letter to congressional leaders yesterday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

They say they are tired of getting fund-raising calls from lawmakers and fear it will only get worse after the court ruling.

"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress."

While most companies are not shy about helping friendly candidates or trying to influence lawmakers, few anticipate they will run advertisements openly endorsing or attacking candidates.

"The Supreme Court decision will not impact the modest level of contributions made directly to political candidates by the Vanguard Committee for Responsible Government," said John S. Woerth, spokesman for the Vanguard Group.

Paul L. Rosengren, spokesman for Public Service Enterprise Group, said the New Jersey energy company rarely engaged in political advertising in the past.

"We'll certainly evaluate what this means for us, but we don't imagine we'll be one of the big players in the field," he said.

Weinberger, of OpenSecrets.org, said businesses that responded too aggressively could face shareholder challenges. "Corporations don't like to see their names in newspapers in activities that put them in a negative light," he said.

But Weinberger said companies could get accustomed to the looser rules and discover unanticipated benefits. "You could really see the floodgates open up," he said.