Today, unless I'm pleasantly surprised, Republicans will once again block the Senate from considering the DISCLOSE Act -- a piece of legislation that would bring at least a modicum of transparency to our badly broken campaign finance system.
But let me back up.
Every citizen of a democracy is supposed to have the same say in the decisions our government makes (or, at least, in who gets to make those decisions on our behalf). That's why each of us gets the same number of votes in an election (one). I grew up in Minnesota, where we treasure our tradition of civic engagement -- and our record of having the nation's highest voter participation.
Of course, in a country where running for office is incredibly expensive, the ability to spend money to support candidates and causes (both by contributing directly to them and by making "independent expenditures" on their behalf) is another way to have a say.
But while we each have the same number of votes to cast, we don't each have the same amount of money to give. And for decades, we've debated how to best protect our democratic principles despite that disparity.
Reformers (like me) have argued that we should limit how much influence any one person can gain by limiting how much money any one person can spend. The idea being that unlimited money in politics is inherently corrupting.
Opponents of such reform have disagreed vehemently. The idea being that money is speech -- and since free speech should be unlimited, so should money.
But until lately, there has always been bipartisan agreement that campaign spending -- limited or not -- should at least be transparent. Even as they've fought against spending limits designed to clean up our elections, many conservatives have solemnly assured the American people that they understood sunlight to be the best disinfectant. (In Minnesota, for example, we've had a long and bipartisan tradition of transparency in our campaign finance system.)
Then, in Citizens United, the Supreme Court overturned a century of precedent to find that the right to have a say over elections wasn't, in fact, reserved for citizens after all -- corporations could enjoy it, too. And in FreeSpeechNow.org v. FEC, the Court found that even the weak limits we'd established to prevent the powerful from completely dominating our elections were unconstitutional.
Barring a constitutional amendment (which involves, shall we say, formidable hurdles), a change of heart on the part of the current Justices (extremely unlikely, given their recent ruling in the Montana campaign finance case), or a change in the composition of the Court (not really up to us), reformers have lost the argument over spending limits by a final vote of 5 to 4.
In the 2010 election, these "independent expenditures" by outside groups -- organizations established under obscure provisions of the tax code with names using words like "Future," "Prosperity," and/or "Freedom" in various permutations -- totaled more than $280 million, more than double what they spent in 2008 and more than five times what they spent in 2006. Outside groups spent more than the actual Democratic and Republican party committees.
And already in 2012, we've seen a single individual write multi-million-dollar checks in support of his favorite presidential candidate. We've seen corporations spend tens of millions of dollars on attack ads. We could see $1 billion in outside spending before Election Day.
Worse, there is little sunlight to be found in the post-Citizens United political system. Corporations that want to hide their spending can create shell corporations to contribute unlimited money to a group -- so that when you look at the outside group's fundraising records (which are published only occasionally), you'll see the shell corporation but not the original source of the money.
And that guy who wrote all those seven-figure checks to support his favorite presidential candidate? We only know about that because he announced it himself (adding that some of his future spending would remain secret).
And because none of this spending is transparent, none of these spenders (or the candidates who profit from their spending) can be held accountable. We simply don't know who is wielding all this financial power in this year's elections. We just know it isn't us, the people. That's a system in need of disinfecting.
Which brings me back to the DISCLOSE Act. This bill doesn't overturn Citizens United. It doesn't limit how much money individuals or corporations can spend on independent expenditures. All it does is require that this spending be disclosed publicly. It reflects what used to be a bipartisan consensus around the effectiveness of transparency and disclosure in avoiding corruption.
But today -- unless, again, I'm pleasantly surprised -- all the Republicans in the Senate, including those who have specifically called for more disclosure in our system, will once again block it from proceeding.
In our country, a few have a lot more money than the rest. In our political system, money is power. And that means a few can have a lot more power than the rest. That's bad news for everyone else -- and for our democracy itself. And although we've always argued over how best to prevent that from happening, today's vote is yet another sign that some have decided to embrace that shift instead.
The Sunlight Foundation: Rebuttal to McConnell's War of Misinformation on DISCLOSE Act
The Brennan Center for Justice: Not Buying Senator McConnell's Position on Disclosure
It's up to us. Radical action is called for. A Revolution Without A Shot.
I think WTPpl should vote out ALL incumbents* - the bad, the ugly and unfortunately, the good. Every one. Simply to show current and future representatives who's in charge.
++Lobbyists would lose all influence - their "contacts" would be swept away. They might never regroup.
++Billionaires would be shown their money is ultimately worth nothing.
++And best of all, EVERY future politician would see that it could happen at any time. It would help keep 'em honest. Maybe do the people's will, even.
What have we to lose? What have we to gain? Nothing. Everything.
*except Obama. POTUS is now a binary choice, and in my opinion, the alternative is a complete disaster. Come on GOP'ers, you know it is.
Only one thing, the debates are moderated by a citizen from the local area chosen by public lottery from a group of volunteers.
We don't need mainstream media asking irrelevant questions to make their "favorite" candidate look good or to embarrass the opposition.
F and F.
Al received 80% of his money from outside the state of Minnesota, something that should be illegal.
I'd like to comment on this statement in two ways,
One- We are not a Democracy we are a Republic. If we were a Democracy Al Gore would have been President If we were a true democracy there would be no Congressmen Senators or a President.
Two- Lets address this "Same Say". If truly we all have the same say, then why do the members of the house vote themselves privileges, that we citizens can not vote in for ourselves? Insider trading is illegal for all, but house members. I know you now have to disclose your transactions, but after the fact. Why don't members of congress have to put their money in blind trust? Other members of the government are not permitted to hold stock they MIGHT have an influence on. ie. Air Traffic Controllers can not hold airline stock or even GE stock, because they make airplane engines. Also why are members of the house exempt from Obama care?
Al it would appear all are created equal but some are more equal.
Before we correct the influences on the house maybe we need to correct the House's foundation.
What does the author mean by "accountable?"
Accountable like Mr. Vander Sloot? Accountable like the government sending the IRS and the Labor Department after him?
Al, how about less talking and more action: public finance of elections. We pay for your election and you work for us. Make it criminal offense to receive contributions outside of public financing of your elections.
How about it?
H
So, for the moment, the Congress can enact the DISCLOSE Act that would ensure some kind of transparency about the BIG donors of money in the electoral kitty. Small consolation! What with the BIG media working in cohoot with the fat cats! But still! Let us do all we can to lend support to the passing of the DISCLOSE Act.
The ONLY way to really fix this mess is with a constitutional amendment. And if we can't get a simple thing like the DISCLOSE Act passed - if even Sen. Franken implies an amendment is out of reach - then the system really is broken beyond repair. The Constitution was designed to be a living document. If it can't be changed, it is dead.
Get your facts straight. Covered organizations are defined in the bill as “Corporations, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, and Certain Other Entities” that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.