DISCLOSE Act attempts to increase transparency. Or something.

The DISCLOSE Act is a congressional response to the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC. The decision struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act, also known as “campaign finance reform,” that prohibited all corporations from broadcasting communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.

The DISCLOSE Act, which stands for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,” amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and seemingly aims to circumvent the Citizens United ruling by upping the disclosure requirements by corporations’ tv ads. The Act requires the head of an organization to appear in the political ad and the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad, as well as any “significant” funder. The name of the organization must be restated three times; the name of the head of the organization must be restated twice (from this post).

But many are critical of the intentions of the act’s supporters, especially after a round of revisions that have favored large, powerful lobbies. Some are calling it the “Shotgun Sellout.” Here’s one take on it:

If self-styled reformers had any discernable [sic] principles beyond silencing political speakers, they might have recognized that secretly negotiating special treatment for arguably one of the nation’s most powerful and well-funded interest groups might not serve the cause of transparency or limit the influence of big-spending interest groups—goals the pro-regulation crowd supposedly supports.

The exemption made for the NRA would allow any organization meeting the following requirements exemption from the Act:
(1) more than a million dues-paying members,
(2) members in all 50 states,
(3) a 10-year or more history as a tax-exempt group and
(4) less than 15 percent of their funding from business corporations.

Only the NRA, AARP and the Humane Society qualify.

If the purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is transparency, it’s certainly counterproductive to exempt the larger lobbies. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. As it stands, the opposition to the act is greater in numbers than support.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pulled the bill on June 17. The bill was reintroduced and will most likely be voted on Thursday, June 24.

Citizens United, transparency, and privacy

In the supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to limit corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. This is in effect a blocking of a key part of campaign finance law, which has been criticized as a hinderance on the First Amendment.

Under the law, corporations would still be required to be open and transparent. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that he hopes the internet and prompt disclosure will “provide […] citizens with the information needed to hold … elected officials accountability for their positions and supporters.”

We should hold elected officials accountable. But why “supporters?”

Our friends at the Sunlight Foundation notes that privacy for donors stems from attempts by the KKK to get membership lists of NAACP contributors in order to harass them and threaten violence. Sunshine Review sees the court’s decision as a win for free speech and confidentiality. Private citizens have the right to express themselves through donations and feel safe that their political speech will remain private.

After all, the Citizen’s United case started when a group of citizens wanted to air a documentary against then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Supporters of Clinton may be sympathetic to attempts to remove the shield of privacy for these citizens. But would they feel the same if the documentary were about another presidential candidate? Or a policy issue they support?

The same law that protects corporate donors would protect civil right leaders. This was a win for free speech.