Campaign money disclosure is needed

By The Des Moines Register

-----

Critics were rightly concerned about the corrupting influence of unlimited campaign spending after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations and unions can spend money from their treasuries to influence elections. There was broad agreement that at the very least the sources of the money should be fully and immediately disclosed to the public.

Well, apparently that agreement wasn't so broad after all.

Twice last week Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked consideration of legislation that would require such disclosure. The Disclose Act had enough votes to pass, but it was twice blocked by filibuster, the Senate's procedural rule that takes 60 votes to overcome. All votes against taking up the bill came from Republicans, including Iowa's Chuck Grassley. All votes for consideration came from Democrats, including Iowa's Tom Harkin.

The Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision rightly protected First Amendment rights of all citizens to express their political views, no matter what group they may belong to. The public needs to know who is paying for the speech, however.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in an interview on CNN Wednesday, put the case succinctly: “I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. That's what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from.”

Senate Republican leaders who oppose limits on campaign contributions have in the past endorsed the idea of full disclosure of the sources of campaign spending. But they have changed their minds. Now they see efforts to force disclosure of spending by political committees taking advantage of the Citizen United ruling as a sinister plot to punish people who donate to conservative causes.

“Throughout my career, I've consistently called for the full and timely disclosure of all contributions to candidates and parties,” Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wrote in a July 5 guest essay in USA Today. But he likened the Disclose Act to Alabama's efforts to force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists in the 1950s “to discourage people from freely associating with a cause or group.”

The public does not need to know the names of all the dues-paying members of any private organization created primarily for purposes other than engaging in politics. But the public should know if those organizations are spending their money to support or oppose political candidates. Organizations created solely to collect money to support or oppose candidates should disclose the names of their donors, since that is the intent of the donations.

McConnell and other Republicans opposing the Disclose Act are laying the groundwork for unlimited, anonymous spending on political campaigns. That is unacceptable. It may be next to impossible for the government to regulate spending on political campaigns, but the public should know who is writing checks on behalf of candidates. It would be far easier for politicians to trade votes for cash when there is no public record of the money changing hands.

Under current law, it's possible to anonymously funnel money, whether corporate, union or personal, into “political committees” classified as nonprofit “educational” organizations under IRS rules. These so-called super PACs are exempt from campaign finance regulations as long as they make expenditures on behalf of a candidate independently.

The House has passed the Disclose Act. If it had been law, the American people would know who is financing those efforts. But they don't, and that won't change as long as Senate Republicans vote in lock-step to prevent consideration of a change in the law.

--