Filibuster blocks attempt to restore campaign transparency

Unlimited campaign spend- ing is the law of the land, ratified by a Supreme Court that equated corporations with people and the spending of money with exercising free speech.

Ultimately, we believe that the Citizens United decision, rendered in a 5-4 vote by the John H. Roberts court, will be shown to be a wrong-headed ruling that undercuts the venerable concept of one person, one vote. That said, the Roberts court doubled down on Citizens United in this term by forbidding individual states from putting a cap on campaign spending.

While the court is loath to admit it, granting an unlimited right to individuals or organizations with the most money to attempt to affect the outcome of elections through their pre-election spending replaces one person, one vote with the golden rule: he who has the gold, rules.

One person, one vote was a creation of the Warren Court in 1964, and it is interesting to recall a line written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in that 8-1 decision: “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”

It is difficult to judge which statement was more naive, Warren’s in Reynolds v. Sims, or that of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote in Citizens United v. FEC that no evidence had been presented to the court that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote and that unbridled independent campaign expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

In a concession to open government, Citizens United allowed to stand requirements that contributors who gave $10,000 or more to a candidate’s campaign would be required to disclose their identity. Kennedy wrote that “disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech.”

Taking advantage

But the court left open a loophole that has since been seized on by deep-pocketed donors to both political parties. Contributors to public information campaigns, rather than to the candidates’ campaign, would still enjoy anonymity. Special interest groups are now spending tens of millions of dollars and before November will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns that are clearly designed to squeeze through the loophole. In a favorite dodge, these ads won’t say “Vote for Mr. Challenger,” they will recite a litany of alleged transgressions by the incumbent and then advise the viewer: “Tell Mr. Incumbent to stop what he’s doing.”

This week Congress had yet another opportunity to close some of these loopholes and restore a measure of election-spending transparency. It was called the Disclose Act, and in the past similar measures have received a modest level of bipartisan support.

In fact, 14 of the Republicans in the Senate have supported similar legislation in the past, including, even, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. But now, in a post-United era where one man has announced his intention to spend $100 million if necessary to defeat President Barack Obama, not one Republican in the Senate would vote to allow and up-or-down vote on the Disclose Act. Republicans were perfectly unified in their support of a filibuster that blocked any attempt to restore transparency to our elections.

While Justice Kennedy, who like others on the court has never sought elective office, may believe that money neither corrupts nor gives the appearance of corruption, the career politicians in the Senate know better.

They also know that without campaign-financing disclosure, it is not only impossible for the public to know who is trying to buy a majority of votes with saturation advertising, it’s impossible to know whether those dollars are coming from our fellow citizens or foreign interests. The addiction to campaign money is so great, that even that apparently does not matter to some of our elected officials. In politics, money isn’t everything; it has become the only thing.