Shining a light on political donations
Editorial Board, Editorial
Today we publish a commentary by Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arguing against legislation to
require expanded campaign finance disclosure. The senator
points to the current furor over how the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) mishandled applications from tea party and
other conservative groups for tax-exempt status under
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. We
certainly agree with him that the IRS failed to meet basic
standards of fairness in selectively pressing the groups
for more information and in delaying their
applications.
Mr. McConnell writes that the IRS scandal shows that
political donors must be protected from possible
"intimidation" by the government, that Washington is out to
"target people because of their beliefs." This is an
awfully dark view of national government under any
administration. Such practices are common in other
countries but not in the United States. The IRS failure was
an exception, and a bad one, but not the rule.
Meanwhile, the political process is sliding backward toward
the practices of the years before the Watergate reforms.
More than $300 million in secret contributions were
spent by outside groups in the 2012 presidential and
congressional races. In the last cycle, a large share of
the hidden cash was channeled through 501(c)(4) tax-exempt
organizations. And here's a key fact that often gets
overlooked: Under the rules, these organizations have to
disclose their donors to the IRS. Only the public remains
in the dark.
Secrecy denies vital information to voters about who is
contributing to which candidates. Very often, these
contributions are made in search of influence on policy. We
think openness here is a more valuable public good than is
providing a cloak for every fat cat who wants to remain
hidden.
The two main parties once agreed that disclosure should be
a pillar of campaign finance. In 2010, the Supreme Court's
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
opened the door to unlimited contributions by corporations,
wealthy individuals and labor unions. It should not be
forgotten that in Citizens United a majority of the court
reaffirmed the importance of disclosure. But having won on
the issue of contribution limits, many Republicans
abandoned their previous support for disclosure.
An attempt toward more transparency was made in the last
Congress with the Disclose Act, but the measure was blocked
by Republicans. Now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has joined with
a Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to offer a
fresh attempt at a bipartisan bill, the Follow the Money
Act, which, they declared, will cover "the full universe of
independent political spenders." One welcome idea in the
bill is real-time electronic reporting and disclosure of
contributions. It is not clear whether the mechanism of the
bill would deliver the worthy goal of universal coverage,
but there is time to hammer out details. It's significant
that Ms. Murkowski has become the first Republican in a
while to sign up for a campaign disclosure bill, and we
hope she can persuade others to join her.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) reintroduced the Disclose Act
in January, and a version is expected to be introduced in
the Senate by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). This legislation
also has valuable provisions, such as requiring
corporations and unions to disclose their campaign-related
spending to shareholders and members.
The road to passage for any legislation this year is going
to be uphill, but the push for greater openness deserves
support. In a political system saturated with cash,
transparency is the last, best hope for accountability.
See the article on Washington Post website