OpinionEditorial
Editorial

In politics, just show us the money

EditorialsOpinionPoliticsElectionsLaws and LegislationPolitical FundraisingCourts and the Judiciary
Will Congress move forward on a revised Disclose Act?

Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly undermined even the most reasonable attempts to limit the corrupting influence of money in politics. In desperation, Democrats in Congress have tried at least to open the shadowy campaign finance process to public view. Yet even that has failed so far.

Twice, they have sought to pass the Disclose Act, which would shine a welcome beam of light into the realm of "dark money" that governs American political campaigns. A third iteration of the bill, recently introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would require unions, corporations, super PACs and any other organizations that spend $10,000 or more on a "campaign-related disbursement" to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, detailing each expenditure over $1,000 as well as the names of all of the organization's donors who gave $10,000 or more. The bill would also prohibit 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofit groups from acting as conduits for anonymous political spending — a method of donation beloved by corporations seeking to avoid scrutiny by the public. It would become difficult to use shell organizations to mask contributions.

Voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their votes. In 2011, a mysterious company called W Spann LLC gave $1 million to the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future — and then was dissolved. The true donor of that enormous political sum was able to remain anonymous until pressure from Democrats and the media prompted Ed Conard, a former business partner of Romney's at Bain Capital, to reveal that he had "formed and funded" W Spann. In late 2012, the Washington Post reported that Cancer Treatment Centers of America founder Richard Stephenson and his family had anonymously routed a staggering $12 million in donations to the tea party-associated organization FreedomWorks, which spends on behalf of (and against) candidates.

In 2008, in the last presidential election cycle before the Supreme Court's troubling Citizens United decision, independent spending from undisclosed sources was $69 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the 2012 cycle, that figure exceeded $310 million. Seventy-eight percent of it went to negative advertising, and more than $250 million of it favored the GOP.

Even Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who authored the unfortunate decision in Citizens United, wrote: "The 1st Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way."

The Republican leadership disagrees, citing worries that some donors might be harassed if their identities were made public. But that was not the view of the party before Citizens United. In 2003, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told NPR's "Talk of the Nation": "Money is essential in politics, and not something that we should feel squeamish about, provided the donations are limited and disclosed, everyone knows who's supporting everyone else." He and his party should stand by those words today.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
EditorialsOpinionPoliticsElectionsLaws and LegislationPolitical FundraisingCourts and the Judiciary
  • Waiting until college to teach about affirmative consent is too late
    Waiting until college to teach about affirmative consent is too late

    California's new affirmative-consent law has garnered national attention this fall, and for good reason. The first-of-its-kind “yes means yes” statute requires

  • FCC is wisely taking its time on net neutrality action
    FCC is wisely taking its time on net neutrality action

    The Federal Communications Commission has decided to put off action on net neutrality until 2015, drawing protests from those lobbying for strict regulation of Internet service providers. It's tempting to argue that the delay gives the commission time to develop a consensus, but that's a fool's...

  • Budget-cutter Gov. Brown could do more to restore UC's health
    Budget-cutter Gov. Brown could do more to restore UC's health

    For all that he's a regent of the University of California, Gov. Jerry Brown is not an expert on academia or modern trends in higher education. What he brings to the deliberations over UC's budget isn't the perspective of a visionary seeking to maintain and build on the university's...

  • ACLU offers a smart safeguard for using surveillance technology
    ACLU offers a smart safeguard for using surveillance technology

    Advances in technology have given police agencies vastly expanded surveillance capabilities. Facial recognition software that can identify suspects, databases that can be tapped to track suspects' movements and locations, automatic license plate readers, social media monitoring, body cameras...

  • Obama steps away from the Powell Doctrine
    Obama steps away from the Powell Doctrine

    We're three months into our newest war, the one against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and nobody's happy with how it's going.

  • The complicated rules of citizenship
    The complicated rules of citizenship

    To Americans, the rules of citizenship can seem simple: You're a member of this nation either by birth or naturalization. But centuries of debate over how citizenship can be acquired and lost show that the concept is not simple at all. This is especially true of birthright citizenship, the rule...

Comments
Loading