Posted: 07/30/10 15:34
by Dave Mindeman
There is a lot of ways to look at the coming onslaught of corporate donations. This flap with Target's corporate donation is giving us a preview of the arguments to be made.
I always hate the contention that unlimited money donations is akin to free speech, but we have a Supreme Court that seems to side with that interpretation, so we are stuck with it for now.
However, the flip side of that needs to be addressed. We should be entitled to know who is making those large contributions and to whom.
After all, a democracy is only as good as its informed electorate and when making voting decisions, an important aspect of what we need to know involves public record of large donors to any particular campaign.
Too often, in the past, the campaign finance laws that existed were circumvented by PAC groups disguised with inocuous names, funded by deep pocketed individuals, with stealth political agendas.
So, as the deeper pockets of corporate fingers grasp the neck of campaign finance, shouldn't our free speech rights to know and protest such massive contributions be part of the debate as well?
Which brings us to the DISCLOSE ACT (or as explained by the full name..... Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act).
This legislation would not block corporate donations, but it would, by force of law, make sure that who was giving was public knowledge. And, although this legislation has passed the House, the Republicans have a filibuster in play (again..).
If corporate donations are free speech, then why is it important that it NOT be public knowledge? Could it be that corporations are afraid of public displeasure from customers and stockholders?
The DISCLOSE ACT does have some problems:
Exemptions made for large, long-standing, non-profit groups which would not fall under the bill's disclosure requirements, such as the NRA, the AARP, and the Humane Society. The exemption was included in the House in order to gain support from moderates and conservatives.
Republicans are using these exemptions to argue against the bill and I have to say that I am troubled by them as well. There should be no exemptions....for any reason.
But it shows us how broken the methods of moving legislation have become. To even get this bill to the floor, these special interest groups had to be appeased....especially the NRA.
But, even with the flaws in this bill, we need to have this in place. Corporations are just going to move their giving to groups that do not disclose their donors. They will become conduits to finance agendas that promote their corporate or political interests. They will use profits gathered from you and me and then use that money to promote policies that could hurt you and me.
Transparency is really our only protection. And so far, that protection is hard to see through.
