Disclosure is the least we can do

Inspired by Justice Antonin Scalia‘s remarks in this New York Times story, I penned my Review-Journal column today on the subject of campaign finance disclosure.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that money is the equivalent of speech in campaigns (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 [1976]) and that speech may not be curtailed even to prevent the appearance of corruption in politics (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 558 U.S. 50 [2010]). And it doesn’t appear that either of those holdings will be overturned anytime soon.

So, an appropriate solution, I argue in my piece, is to require full disclosure of all donations and spending intended to influence the political system. That would include donations made to so-called public benefit corporations, also known as 501(c)(4) non-profits.

And it appears, based not only on Justice Scalia’s remarks in the Times story but also in Citizens United, that the Supreme Court would uphold disclosure requirements as constitutional.

3 Responses to “Disclosure is the least we can do”

  1. Steve says:

    Since the inception of the USA big money has always had the loudest political voice. No matter what restrictions have been tried big money has always been able to have its voice, but not always getting its wishes. These latest attempts to curb big moneys’ voice are a poorly disguised attempt to quell the conservative money voice. Trouble is big money is truly unable to actually buy elections. Remember Mitt tried to buy the nomination in 08? Remember Adelson tried to buy the nomination for Newt this time? No, big money is far and away not enough and we should trust in the founders Constitution, votes are very much needed and there is not enough big money to buy the majority of those.

  2. Steve says:

    And what about the ketchup king from a couple cycles ago? Plenty big money in that camp.

  3. Jerry Sturdivant says:

    The fact the donators don’t want to be identified should be the first clue. When a Defense Contractor CEO makes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars in profits; it’s rather obvious why he’d want to hide his name when donating to the very people that award him those (no bid) contracts.

Leave a Reply