To one viewing the Disclose Act debate in the U.S. Senate Monday night, July 16, it seemed preposterous that anyone could resist the logic of passing the hugely popular measure.
The Act’s backers skillfully laid out the facts and the critical need for passage while their opponents ignored the facts and ranted they were being subjected to a senseless “dog and pony show.”
Guess who won.
Naysaying GOP troopers of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader from Kentucky, effectively prevented a vote on the measure. They did the same next day.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island democrat, put forward the compromise Act in March. When the Senate finally considered the proposal on July 16, it had 28 co-sponsoring Senators and more than 220,000 on-line citizen co-sponsors.
A Curb on Donations
The Act would require outside political groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to report the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. Importantly, it would require groups like the so-called Super Pacs to identify their big-money donors.
Polls indicate that a broad swath of Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--want action to curb Super Pacs. It’s widely believed that they corrupt political campaigns.
Here’s why:
In its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave certain Political Action Committees (PACS) a new freedom. If the Pacs did not give directly to candidates, parties, or other PACS, they could accept unlimited funding from corporations, unions, other PACS and individuals. They could use the money to, for instance, pay for campaign advertising, movies, and such.
And
As it turned out, the donors to these newly freed “Super PACS” do not have to reveal the names of corporate or individual donors.
Corporate Camouflage
Also corporations can make secret donations using phony “shell” companies as cover. That way the public cannot learn the source of noxious ads plugging noxious policies and particular candidates. One danger of this is that foreign governments might form shell-companies to shield donations intended to influence U.S. elections.
Beyond that, consider that big-time donors like the fabulously wealthy brothers David and Charles Koch, owners of the second largest privately held company in the nation, and Sheldon Adelson, CEO of the Los Angeles Sands Corp., don’t contribute tens and millions of dollars to political organizations for fun. They want something for their money.
And although the public may not know who is behind the Super PAC ads for a given candidate, the candidate surely knows. He will be expected to show his gratitude later.
What’s more, as Sen. Whitehouse says, “The flood of secret money unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision threatens to drown out the voices of middle class families in our democracy.”
Protection against Special Interests
The Senator says the Disclose Act would, “uphold every citizen’s right to know where this secret money is coming from and whom it is going to, and will help protect the interests of middle class families from the special interests who already have too much power.”
What’s wrong with that?
In the GOP view, plenty. Super Pacs are Republican favorites. That’s partially because the best funded, most successful Super Pacs are products of GOP luminaries like the Kochs. And those smarmy Pacs shower their blessings on those who protect them.
So the GOP champions secrecy even though the record shows the GOP once screamed and yelled for disclosure and transparency in campaign financing.
---Gus Gribbin
No comments:
Post a Comment