What surely is the most neglected and among the most important issues of this election season will likely be aired for at least a few hours in the Senate early next week. It would be a wonderful surprise if senators make the most of it, and voters should pay close attention to those who don't.
The DISCLOSE Act (S 3369), a simple effort to allow Americans to know who is spending big money to influence our elections, hits the Senate floor on Monday. Stripped down from legislation that passed the House in 2010 but fell a single vote short in the Senate, the bill would close a huge loophole that lets individuals, corporations and labor unions secretly invest in politics by funneling their money through tax-exempt non-profit organizations that are exempt from disclosure requirements.
More than $130 million in secret money sailed through this loophole and into the 2010 elections; hundreds of millions more are flowing into this year's races for control of the White House and Congress.
Introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI), and 28 co-sponsors, the new DISCLOSE bill was redrafted to address objections to the 2010 version. Gone are meaningful provisions that would have banned political spending by government contractors and required broadcast ads to list the names of at least some of the donors paying for them. Language that the bill's Republican opponents alleged would force corporate spending into the open while shielding labor spending from disclosure also has been removed -- the new bill treats labor and management spending in exactly the same way. Last but certainly not least, the bill would not take effect until next year, so it would have no impact on this year's elections.
Still, Republicans are promising a filibuster to block the Senate from debating the bill, amending it or taking a final vote to pass or kill it. That tactic worked in 2010 and DISCLOSE supporters concede that they are unlikely to muster the 60-vote super majority needed to overcome it this year.
That's a shame, because the case against DISCLOSE is nothing short of laughable.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY) once a vocal supporter of political transparency, now leads the opposition to DISCLOSE; he peddles the nonsense that it's part of a plot to push corporations out of politics. Rather than anger powerful incumbents by openly spending money to oppose them, or invite consumer retaliation by supporting unpopular candidates, companies will close their checkbooks and remain silent, McConnell argues.
The fact is that corporations were openly involved in our elections long before the Citizens United decision allowed them to use corporate money to support or oppose candidates. For decades, hundreds of companies have attached their names to political action committees (PACs), financed by publicly-disclosed donations from their executives and employees; if those companies were seriously worried about reprisals or threatened by politically-inspired boycotts, they'd have shut down their PACs long ago.
And to whatever extent that government officials or irate customers act to cancel contracts or do actual damage to businesses because of their political spending, there are laws in place to punish those involved.
What's really at stake in the DISCLOSE debate is the public's right to know. Before every election, Americans are exposed to hundreds -- even thousands -- of political messages. Information about who is paying for all that speech is vital to our ability to assess it and make decisions about which candidates we want to support.
And disclosure yields added benefits after Election Day, when the people, groups and companies that pay for all that speech come calling on the officials it helped elect. Disclosure lets us connect the dots when officials repay donors by rewriting the laws that tax or regulate their businesses or associations; the knowledge that we can detect such corruption can keep it from happening.
In short, DISCLOSE is a critical line of defense in the battle to make ours a government truly "of, by and for the people." Liberals who worry that big businesses are trying to buy our democracy, and conservatives who have the same fear about the influence of big labor, should support it with equal fervor.
Follow Bob Edgar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BobEdgarCC
Obama 2012 For Sure! Thanks Mitt for the early present of lacking a spine and owning up to what you did!
If I see an ad from "FarmPAC" thanking my congressman for introducing some ag legislation, it will make a big difference to me to know who FarmPAC is. Are its members family farmers living in our congressional district, or is it fully funded by ConAgra and ADM?
This stuff about anonymity being necessary to prevent the bullies from picking on contributors is pure nonsense. The campaigns are required to release their donor lists, and we don't hear folks complaining about being attacked.
80% of PAC contributions are made by fewer than 200 donors. Considering the impact that PAC spending and advertising is already having on our elections - Romney wouldn't be the presumptive nominee without them - this is a heck of a lot of power and influence concentrated in a very few hands.
The candidates know who these donors are. Voters should know who they are, too.
Now of course there are limits to personal donations so there is the perceptive that noone can buy favors for such small amounts. However, we live in a republic where there is freedom of speech. If I want to spend all my money to push a particular point of view -- that's my right. And I deserve to do so without threat of injury, alienation or economic harm. PACs are the way in which individuals colletively, speaking with a single voice, can amplify their message. And they do so with the protection of be anonymous. You can say people are buying elections, but the fact is, PACs are available for any and all parites. You can say that elections should only be funded by the public, but that would push money underground. Just as the liberals want "everyone" to vote, without proof of citizenship, conservatives want "everyone" to have a voice, regardless of identity. You want to know who I contribute to -- and I want to know who votes. That where the comprimise is to be had.
The fight to keep these political donations private isn't just about influencing the elections, it's about influencing legislation. It would be a lot harder for elected officials to claim that there's no conflict of interest when they push legislation that benefits their big contributors if the public knows who the contributors are.
People are corruptible beings. Even good people do unethical things from time to time if they think they won't get caught. Folks are less likely to engage in unethical behavior if they believe that others will find out about it. Let's help our elected officials and their staff avoid the temptation to act unethically.
It doesn't prevent anyone from using their money for political speech.
It doesn't raise taxes on any group or behavior.
It doesn't increase the budget or deepen the deficit.
It simply requires that the voices taking positions in our political discourse have names attached to them.
There are already laws prohibiting foreign entities from infulencing our elections. How do we know if Barclays or Saudi Arabia or Israel or even China are contributing to key politicians or causes to influence the outcome?
You simply don't.
That's a bad thing.
The argument that "outing" political donors could cause them to lose business and so might "silence" them is absurd on the face of it. Corporations do what is expedient to help them turn a profit.
If contributing to "Nuke the Whales" will help them make money, they'll do it in a heartbeat. On the other hand, if doing so might alienate a key consumer demographic, they may choose not to do so. Or, if they make money even though they alienate a certain few, it might be back on again. It's an equation. For corporations, the "right thing to do" is the thing that maeks the most money.
It has nothing to do with morality or "greater purpose"and everything to do with what strategy will return the highest yield. Adding consumer awareness of corporations' political spending may change the variables in the equation, but otherwise doesn't change the game a bit.