I don’t think Justice Stevens will mind.

I’ve been working on legislation to restrict corporations’ expenditures in political campaigns since last Friday, the day after the Supreme Court ruling opening the floodgates for businesses to dominate the political process.

Maryland’s limits on the amount of money a company or individual can give directly to candidates are not affected by the decision. However, there are no longer any restrictions on independent expenditures by individual or corporations.

This means a company can spend any amount on an ad campaign targeting a candidate. My bill would require businesses to get their shareholders’ approval before doing so, just as they must do so now before merging with another company.

Companies doing business with the state government could not wage such campaigns, and no corporation could claim these costs as a business expense for state tax purposes, under other bills being drafted.

Before today’s press conference, I decided I should read the case – or at least Justice Stevens’ dissent. He wrote about the damage that would result to public faith in the integrity of the democratic process from the undue influence of corporations brought on by the majority’s decision.

Standing before the microphones, I didn’t say that I was quoting Justice Stevens, but I will in my written testimony.