The Big Question: Will Congress pass the Disclose Act?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today. ...

Today's question:

Will the disclose act be signed into law this year? Should it be?

Some background reading.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.org, said:

The DISCLOSE Act is a good step toward government accountability and transparency, helping reveal the uses of money in politics.

It's not perfect, but perhaps the NRA exception might be more revealing than actually showing their contributions.

Disclaimer: I'm on the board of Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit that focuses on the digitization of government data and the creation of tools and Web sites to make that data easily accessible for all citizens.



Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for Family Research Council Action, said:
 
The bill itself is hypocrisy at its utmost.  Senator Dianne Feinstein deserves some credit for recognizing this.   The main purpose behind this bill, written by the head of the Democratic Congressional Committee and liberal Republican Mike Castle (R-Del.) who fears a primary challenge, is this election - for they are very aware that the DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional.  They know that the courts may eventually overturn the law, but not before November 2. By then, the damage to free speech will have already been done.
 
The second amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment and so on mean nothing if not for the protections guaranteed in the first amendment. Even if the legislation were to exclude organizations that are headed over by former state legislators from Louisiana, FRC Action would still oppose this onerous legislation.  Protecting one organization over another shouldn't be the issue but rather about protecting the US Constitution.
 
The gall of those who will disregard the rules and decency to pass this legislation is amazing, especially so soon after the bastardization of the process to pass the absurdity of Obamacare.  This bill should not pass.
 


Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Yes – complete with NRA exemption.  And top NRA brass should appear in face masks for the Oval Office signing.  You can’t make this stuff up.
 

Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:

I am not sure that it will actually make it to the President's desk-- since a number of liberal Democrats will probably balk at the NRA deal. However, as one who believes that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good, I think it should be passed.




Meredith McGehee, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, said:

The DISCLOSE ACT most certainly should be signed into law this year and there are encouraging signs that it will be.

Despite the recent hubbub made by special interests from across the political spectrum over the “NRA fix”, the bill remains a strong and necessary piece of legislation that will require disclosure accurate and timely of the big money being spent to influence elections.  

There’s no denying that the optics of the NRA fix are bad:  legislation moving through the House is amended to provide an exemption for a large and powerful interest group, which like it or not, has the power in the House to bring the bill down.  The sausage factory is churning away.

But in the case of the DISCLOSE Act, it is important to look beyond the optics into the merits of the legislation and the impact of the exemption.   The core provisions of the bill – ensuring that money laundered through third party groups is disclosed, closing the gap created by the Citizens United decision in the ban on foreign nationals from influencing U.S, elections, strengthening current rules (which are notoriously weak) governing coordination of activities with candidates and parties and enhancing disclosure of political expenditures made by corporations, unions, 527 organizations, and 501c groups – are too important to be deep-sixed at this point in the process.

Even with the revised NRA fix, large, nationwide grassroots organizations with more than 500,000 members will have to continue to disclose their independent expenditures and to abide by the “stand by your ad” provisions in the bill.  The public will recognize these large organizations’ “brands” and know who is behind the ads and the motivations behind them.

Much of the outrage with the fix is completely overblown, with special interests in Washington covering their eyes and acting they’ve never seen compromises in the legislative process.  The votes simply were not there to pass this vitally important piece of legislation without a compromise.

In a perfect world, the NRA – or any other group – wouldn’t hold the sway they do in the U.S. House of Representatives.  In a perfect world, those politicians and their ideological soul mates who touted their support for disclosure when other, more regulatory approaches were being considered, would stand by their previous words and support disclosure when presented with it.  In a perfect world, candidates wouldn’t have to worry about ethics inquiries into their fundraising practices and links with votes and earmarks because they wouldn’t have to spend too many hours each day hat in hand begging for campaign contributions constantly.

Right now, none of us live in that perfect world.  We live in a world where, after the Supreme Court’s activist Citizens United decision, money to influence elections is going to be flying all over the place, much of it seeking to be spent anonymously to have a greater impact.

The House should pass the DISCLOSE Act, get the bill to the Senate, and make sure Americans have the information they need to make informed decisions next fall.  The chances are looking better that Congress will be siding with what polls showed to be 8 in 10 Americans who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United and the 72% who wanted a legislative response.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
   
Any corporate or political entity can easily get around the requirements of the Disclose Act by simply making individual contributions through its members and employees. The Act stifles free speech, and should not be passed.
 

Ashley Horne, Federal Issues Analyst for CitizenLink, said:


Tomorrow the House will vote on the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that aims to silence groups from participating in political speech by imposing onerous disclosure and disclaimer regulations. If passed, this bill will place burdensome restrictions on the ability of non-profits to engage in free speech and to advocate for families and consumers. For example, it would force a group's top donors to appear in any political commercials, even those who aren't donors to the specific ad. It would also mean that top donors' names would be disclosed, even if they aren't funding any part of the political communication.

This is an egregious attempt by the majority to stifle political speech. It is clear that the intention of this bill is to exclude certain groups from the political dialogue. We urge the House to reject this assault on free speech and to vote against the DISCLOSE Act.