Grassley and Disclosure

It's not a perfect bill, clearly.

Still, I wish U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley had voted for it. And I wish he wouldn't try to pass off his no vote on allowing a Senate debate as some sort of brave defense of the First Amendment.

I'm talking about the Disclose Act, legislation dealing with the new campaign finance landscape opened wide by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. With the ruling, corporations are now free to bankroll electioneering by independent groups. Every Inc., according to the court, has a First Amendment right to express itself politically.

On Tuesday, backers of the bill fell a few votes short of breaking a GOP filibuster.

I actually welcomed the court's ruling, so long as I can find out which companies are giving to which groups, and how much. After all, in politics, what is said is often less important than who is saying it.

But that's what Grassley helped make sure won't happen. At its heart, the Disclose Act would require corporations, unions and non-profits to disclose contributions to independent groups. It would have also restrict activity by corporations doing business with the federal government, that received bailouts or that are subsidiaries of foreign companies.

The bill was also flawed, carving out massive exemptions for the National Rifle Association, AARP and the Humane Society. Congressional horse-trading knows no good sense.

But the bill was still worth passing, warts and all.

Grassley argued that the bill would abridge First Amendment rights, even though the courts now and in the past have held that disclosure requirements do no such thing.

Grassley argued that the bill would discourage political discourse. No, all it would do is discourage companies from bankrolling anonymous discourse simply because they can do it on the sly.

Grassley argued the bill is tougher on corporations than unions. And yet, the AFL-CIO opposes the bill.

No, what Grassley and his Republican colleagues did was make sure that added disclosure didn't get in the way of any corporate interests that might want to toss money their way between now and November. It's politics. I understand. But spare us the sugar-coating.

Our only hope for corporate accountability now depends on the marketplace.

In Minnesota, Target Corp. is feeling the public relations heat after it was disclosed that the company gave $150,000 to a group backing Republican candidate for governor Tom Emmer. Evidently Minnesota's disclosure laws are better than the fed's.

Emmer opposes same-sex marriage, but it turns out a vocal group of the normally gay-friendly company's customers and employees see the issue differently. Petitions and protests followed.

Sorry Target, but with rights come responsibilities. Politics can be messy. Wading in can make you unpopular. Trust me, I know.

Corporate types talk a lot about the wonders of a  free marketplace. And I think that goes for the political marketplace as well. We need transparency so the buyer, and the voter, can truly beware.

Grassley should have voted with the free market instead of pulling the plug on transparency.

(Or you can just

skip all my wordiness and look at this cartoon.)