http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=48CAEA3B-18FE-70B2-A819C88646092A3E
Twice the Repubs have blocked this bill from a vote. It would let us know who is financing campaign ads. The Supreme Court opened the campaigns to huge amounts of business and union money. So why is it bad for us to identify who is paying for them?
Why not ask the ACLU? (pdf):
[ul]
[li]The DISCLOSE Act fails to preserve the anonymity of small donors, thereby especially chilling the expression rights of those who support controversial causes.[/li][li]The DISCLOSE Act would chill not only express advocacy on political candidates, but also issue advocacy.[/li][li]The DISCLOSE Act imposes impractical requirements on those who wish to communicate using broadcast messages.[/li][li]The DISCLOSE Act imposes unjust restrictions on contractors, TARP participants and corporations with minimal foreign participation.[/li][/ul]
I imagine the GOP is most concerned about the 4th point, of course, but the law would do a lot more than just “let us know who is financing campaign ads.” I think it would almost certainly get shot down by the Supreme Court even if it did pass.
One problem is we opened our elections to money from international corporations that have a presence in America. I would like to know who BP helps fund.
Yes the court would likely stop it on a 5 to 4 vote.
But all we ask for is knowing who funds the election ads. If you are paying to have your position advocated, why not fess up to paying for the ads?
Nobody cares about the small donors. They are not the people who will fund to get something. A person who give 500 is not expecting a payback. A corporation that dumps a bundle is after something.
How harmful is it to simply state who funded the ad? I think we have a right to know since it affects our elections and determines who will govern us.
We should limit campaign contributions to corporations whose main headquarters is in America. Bechtel and Haliburton should not be allowed to incorporate in Dubai and still election campign in the US.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/can-democrats-win-on-the-discl.html Here is a Post article that says it is a winner for the people v corporations. It also suggests it is an issue most people will not understand or get fired up over .
Well, now that money is “speech” in America, it really doesn’t matter who the money is coming from does it?
Donations to pay for political speech have been protected by the First Amendment for 35 years, since Buckley v. Valeo. And rightly so. Saying money isn’t protected speech is like saying you cannot ban abortions but you can ban doctors.
The question for reasonable minds is how to balance those protections with other legitimate interests, like fighting corruption. Does forcing small donors to reveal what causes they donate to fight corruption? Really?
It would be revealing to see who funds the ads ,especially the huge late ads. Why not allow the people to see who is trying to influence the elections? It does not prohibit them from dropping a bundle. It just lets the people know who cares enough about a subject to fund it.
Donating to a party is one thing, paying for swift boat ads is another. Donations are limited and have less impact. Sponsoring huge campaign ads at the last minute is far different from protected speech.