WASHINGTON — For the second time in as many days, GOP members of the U.S. Senate objected to a campaign finance disclosure bill sponsored by both of Minnesota’s Democratic Senators.
The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations to identify donors who give more than $10,000. Democrats say the bill would overturn some of the more egregious parts of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited political spending by, and anonymous donations to, such groups. The bill failed on a procedural vote, 53-45, nearly the same tally as the vote taken Monday evening.
The DISCLOSE Act wouldn’t undo any other part of the Citizens United decision — corporate and labor spending would still be permitted, and there would be no contribution limits for those giving to so-called “Super PACs,” but such groups would need to disclose their biggest donors.
“This bill is not a panacea. It will not overturn Citizens United, and it will not stop the tsunami of money pouring in from corporations,” Sen. Al Franken, a member of the group of liberal lawmakers who introduced the bill, said. “But it will require that all that special interest money be disclosed publicly, and that will have tremendously beneficial effects for this country. We may not be able to stop the tidal wave of unlimited cash, but we can, and we should, at a minimum know who is writing those big checks.”
The Supreme Court did not block Congress from requiring disclosure in its Citizens United decision. In fact, the court encouraged it, Franken said, quoting the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a floor speech Monday: “The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, pulled the same quotation when addressing the Senate on Monday.
“In reality it is a modest bill in comparison to the size of the problem, but it is a first step toward bringing some sensibleness back to the elections,” she said. “This bill simply ensures the public has access to information about the funding behind television ads and other election materials.”
Republicans objected for a variety of reasons. Sen. John McCain, who helped write massive campaign finance regulations 10 years ago, has said the bill is overly political. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, said she supported the underlying reasons for the bill but would like to see bipartisan legislation work its way through the legislative process, rather than being called directly to the floor for a vote. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, noting that the Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution in three years, said the chamber should be focusing on more pressing issues, like the budget, a deficit reduction package or Congress’ 13 appropriations bills, of which the Senate has taken up none.
“The Senate ought to disclose to the American people what its budget plan is for this country,” he said. “Those are the bread and butter requirements of any Senator.”
The DISCLOSE Act has 39 co-sponsors, all Democrats. It needed 60 votes to pass, but fell seven votes short. The Senate tried passing a beefed-up version of the DISCLOSE Act last session, but it fell one vote short of the 60-vote threshold when all Republicans objected.
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Comments (7)
It's no one's business
who gives what to whom. And it's not the role of government to force anyone to disclose that information.
Given the Left's history of harrassing and even physically attacking people who give to the wrong causes or the wrong candidate, the donor's right to privacy takes precedence.
Republicans fighting hard to keep it alive
Oh why, oh why, would the politicians want to stop their sugar daddies in any way. They talk about how political donation transparency would stifle free speech. What transparency really stifles is corruption. There is nothing like political opaqueness to light the fires of corruption. Big money was given the green light to go wild with the Supreme Court's Citizens United bill. For starters the bill is grossly misnamed. The citizens are not at all united about the bill. It should be called "How the Wealthy Took Over the Political System". Time is going to judge this Supreme Court decision very harshly. It will be called a turning point in our democracy. It only exacerbates political gridlock, a lack of working for all Americans, and corruption.
Of course it's our business
In the context of a birthday gift, or an anniversary treat, or a romantic surprise for someone, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Tester that "who gives what to whom" doesn't merit public scrutiny or knowledge.
In a political and/or election context, however, it appears that Mr. Tester would sell what’s left of democracy in America to the highest, and most anonymous, donor. As usual, he provides not a shred of evidence for his “The Sky Is Falling” scenario of angry leftists attacking people who give to causes or candidates they don’t like. When he can produce some verifiable evidence that this is regularly taking place, the allegation is simply a lie, and not even a very clever one. Further, his allegation – implying that there’s some sort of legal force and precedent behind it – that a donor’s right to privacy takes precedence over disclosure is an interesting opinion, but nothing more. The SCOTUS has suggested otherwise, even in the abominable Citizens United opinion.
No disclosure
The road to fascism.
"Given the Left's history of
"Given the Left's history of harrassing and even physically attacking people who give to the wrong causes or the wrong candidate, the donor's right to privacy takes precedence."
Its funny, conservatives tried to use that argument in court once and were unable to provide one single verifiable incident and their claim turned out to be completely fallacious. Shocking
Bills don't need 60 votes to pass
Bills need a majority vote to pass. Bills need 60 votes to overcome what has become standard Republican holds or quiet filibustering on nearly every piece of legislation that would seem to benefit President Obama in the slightest. This is sloppy, shortcut reporting Mr. Henry and James Fallows at the Atlantic has written extensively on this topic. Add a paragraph to clarify the situation.
Anonymous speech has always
Anonymous speech has always made me uneasy. As my mother suggested, those who refuse to attach their name to statements they make are really cowards, and do not have the courage of their own convictions. They "throw their tomatoes and run," in Mom's plain speech imagery. Rather like the sick, anonymous "Comments" lists on many internet news outlets and blogs. Hiding, from their own shame.
The Citizens United decision bothered even some of the Supreme Court justices, who advocated more transparency to counteract their sanctioning the concept that money equals speech in our political system. Only knowing who gave the money, and how much money, salvages our democratic system even minimally, in the face of that opinion and its already massive and damaging impact on our politics.
Cowards.