Contact: By: Nicole Gaudiano

Washington | June 23, 2010 - Rep. Mike Castle's "yes" vote isn't guaranteed on a campaign finance disclosure bill he co-sponsored to blunt the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case.

Although he is the bill's lead Republican co-sponsor, he said Democrats didn't consult him before exempting the National Rifle Association and other large organizations from the bill's disclosure requirements. He's leaning in favor of the bill, but said he will have to study how "destructive" the amendment will be.

"Frankly, I don't like any of the exclusions," said Castle, of Delaware. "Why should a group be excluded in this circumstance?"

The legislation, called the DISCLOSE Act, would require top underwriters of campaign advertisements to identify themselves on camera in the same I-approved-this-message-style used by candidates. It also would ban campaign ads financed by foreign interests, federal contractors or companies that received federal bailout money. The bill is a response to the January Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which boosted corporations' and unions' ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign ads.

The bill's Democratic sponsor, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, is seeking a House vote this week. Democrats exempted large national groups that take limited funds from corporate or union sponsors in a bid to keep the NRA from killing the bill and to rally support from conservative Democrats.

The change drew fire from anti-gun and progressive groups who, in a June 17 letter to House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, opposed "a two-tiered system of campaign finance laws and First Amendment protections." But some government reform groups are willing to look past the change to get the bill passed. The Obama administration announced Monday it strongly supports the bill, although it would have preferred no exemptions.

Castle and Van Hollen addressed the change in a June 17 article for newspaper opinion and editorial pages, saying that they preferred their original bill but that their legislation would "still shine an unprecedented amount of sunlight on campaign expenditures."

But during a Tuesday interview, Castle said he's weighing his position and examining whether the amendment, if passed by the House, could be stripped in the Senate. He's inclined to support the bill, but he wants to study the exact language of the amendment and other factors, he said.

Asked what would guarantee his "yes" vote, he responded, "No amendment."

Considering it is mostly a Democratic bill, Castle said, Democrats didn't necessarily need to consult him on the change.

Castle said his opposition to the amendment has nothing to do with the NRA, an organization that has given him an "F" for his voting record on gun issues during each election year from 2000 to 2008.

"The whole business of excluding groups, I think, is wrong and my sense is that [the bill] should be applicable to everybody," he said. "These could be 15 groups that are totally favorable to me and I wouldn't like the amendment."