Senate Republicans this week halted the Democrats' drive toward campaign finance reform. Democrats can revive their attempt to bring needed transparency to corporate and union spending on campaign ads by compromising and reaching out to moderate Republicans.
Democrats have just found out what happens when they join a good idea – more disclosure in campaign financing – with flawed legislation and partisan politics. They fail.
This week Democrats were unable to find the votes to bring the DISCLOSE Act to the Senate floor for debate. Republicans lined up uniformly against the bill. Even New England’s moderate GOP senators could not be convinced about a reform idea that has in the past enjoyed bipartisan support.
But this issue is too important to meet defeat on the partisan battlefield. It’s time for greater compromise.
The idea behind DISCLOSE, which stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections,” is a right one, meant to blunt the effects of a regrettable, upending decision by the Supreme Court last January.
In the ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court allowed unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and some other groups on campaign ads for or against a candidate.
The 5-to-4 majority reasoned that these entities have the same First Amendment right of free political speech that individuals have. With that ruling, the flood gates have been opened for special interests with deep pockets to overwhelm the voices (i.e., donations) of individuals.
The heart of the Democrats’ solution to an expected advertising influx was to require transparency so that voters at least know who is behind the spending. The proposed law would have required CEOs or other top officials to appear at the end of political ads and claim responsibility for the content – just as candidates do. It would also have required the disclosure of top donors for the ads and the amounts they paid.