Follow ruling with more disclosure

We're troubled by the implications of last month's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding the ability of corporations to pump money into American politics. The narrow decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) will allow corporations to contribute dollars for direct political advocacy for the first time.

And we're not alone. A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed vast majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents in opposition to the court's ruling.

The question now is what to do about it.

The high court ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment right to bankroll political speech as individuals. That's the law of the land. But now that the court has attached a new, massive add-on to the political finance structure, we hope that remodeling job comes equipped with plenty of windows. We need to see clearly into this brave new world.

Although corporations won't be giving directly to candidates, they will be allowed to give directly to associations or groups that directly advocate for candidates or causes. Unfortunately, under current laws, tracking that giving could be difficult.

We like some of the expanded disclosure provisions folded into congressional legislation unveiled this month in response to the ruling. The bill would require groups to report donations and expenditures to the FEC, and include a list of the top five donors in every advertisement. Corporations that give money for political purposes would be required to disclose that gift to shareholders via a company Web site within 24 hours. Unions and non-profits would be required to set up political activities funds that also file disclosure reports with election officials.

In Iowa, campaign money regulators predict the ruling could have a significant impact in state campaigns. Before the ruling, advocacy groups had little influence in the state because there are no limits on gifts to candidates. Now that corporations can fund those groups, however, regulators expect their activities and influence to grow rapidly.

Under current state law, those groups are required to provide very little information to the public about the donors paying their bills. For example, if a group called “Iowans for Freedom” started running ads against a candidate for governor, paid for with corporate dollars, gaps in current state disclosure laws could make it tough to follow the money.

State lawmakers should move to close those gaps. The Legislature is considering a bill containing new regulations, including additional reporting requirements and prohibitions on candidates and groups colluding to share strategies and resources.

The ruling altered our political landscape. Expanded disclosure is the road map we need to help navigate it.