This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.
The proposal, which has passed the House, enjoys the president's support:
I welcome the introduction of this strong bi-partisan legislation to control the flood of special interest money into America’s elections. Powerful special interests and their lobbyists should not be able to drown out the voices of the American people. Yet they work ceaselessly toward that goal: they claim the protection of the Constitution in extending this power, and they exploit every loophole in the law to escape limits on their activities. The legislation introduced today would establish the toughest-ever disclosure requirements for election-related spending by big oil corporations, Wall Street and other special interests, so the American people can follow the money and see clearly which special interests are funding political campaign activity and trying to buy representation in our government. I have long believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this legislation will shine an unprecedented light on corporate spending in political campaigns. This bill will also prohibit foreign entities from manipulating the outcomes of American elections and help close other special interest loopholes.
At the Cato Institute, John Samples argues that it would be bad for deliberative democracy:
Disclosure is often assumed to provide many benefits to voters while rarely imposing costs on speakers. Here the link between the mandates in the bill and useful information for most voters seems weaker than with contributions. A few voters who already have a lot of knowledge about politics may find the disclosed information useful. Many other voters may use the information about the funding of ads to act contrary to the message of the ad. At the margin, DISCLOSE will encourage debate about the origins of electoral messages rather than about their truth, which may be counted a cost to society insofar as fostering illogical or irrational debates ill serves a deliberative democracy. While DISCLOSE may chill some speech, its mandates will certainly make American elections less rational and deliberative, a cost easily missed in the partisan struggle. The costs of mandated disclosure may be higher and its benefits lower than most people assume.
