Robert A. Levine 2-17-12
Most citizens paying attention to the current Republican presidential primaries would agree that
the new power of the SuperPACs following the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court two years ago is undermining the democratic process. By allowing unlimited contributions to these organizations by individuals, corporations, unions and other entities, the voices of ordinary Americans have been drowned out by advertising spawned by special interests.
Though the Citizens United ruling by a 5-4 decision of the Court was purportedly to enhance freedom of speech, it has greatly tilted the political playing field in favor of the wealthy. And Republican candidates have benefited disproportionately. The pro-Romney SuperPAC, Restore Our Future, collected $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year, with 10% of America’s billionaires contributing. Newt Gingrich’s SuperPAC, Winning The Future, received $10 million from hotel and gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife. Foster Freiss, a wealthy investor, is the main backer of Rick Santorum’s SuperPAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund. With no financial or other restrictions, the SuperPACs have concentrated on negative advertising, using attack ads that bend the truth to tear down opponents. Obama recently reversed his stand on SuperPAC funds to try and bolster his own fundraising to compete with the Republican organizations.
The advent of the SuperPACs promises to make the 2012 election the most expensive and most
negative in history, notwithstanding the electorate’s disdain for these ads. Political strategists employ them because they work. And since the SuperPACs are supposed to be independent of the campaigns, it allows the candidates deniability for the mudslinging.
How can America control the growth and power of these SuperPACs that allow the most affluent individuals and corporations to dominate the political dialogue? Though Citizens United could be overturned by a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither of these is very likely. However, increasing the transparency of the SuperPACs could have a significant effect. Donors might be more reluctant to contribute knowing that they and their businesses would be open to scrutiny if their names were promptly revealed. It would also show voters where the candidates were generating support and stockholders where their money was going.
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) was originally introduced in 2010. It was passed by the House and blocked by Republicans in the Senate on a party-line vote. Though most of its provisions appear to be common sense in a democratic system, the problem with the bill is that it was formulated by Democrats; Schumer, Leahy and Whitehouse in the Senate and Van Hollen in the House. It has been recently reintroduced, but without any bipartisan support, it is virtually dead on arrival in both Houses of Congress.
Among the important provisions of the DISCLOSE Act-
Would require explicit disclaimers for political ads- the top fund raiser would have to issue a disclaimer standing by the information given, similar to what candidates currently must do. And the five top donors to the organization would be listed on the screen at the end of the ad.
Corporations receiving federal contracts worth more than $50,000, foreign corporations, and companies that have not paid back their TARP money would be banned from spending money on federal elections.
The act would also require that donors of $10,000 or more be revealed within twenty-four hours, which would go a long way towards transparency.
Though the DISCLOSE Act has been opposed by the ACLU as well as Republicans as an infringement on free speech and privacy, it seems reasonable to have people and organizations who sponsor political advertisements stand behind their messages. It’s merely truth in advertising and anonymous negative ads have no place in our democracy.
In terms of political advertising in America (and everywhere else), it’s obvious that- money talks; always has and always will.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Most citizens paying attention to the current Republican presidential primaries would agree that
Though the Citizens United ruling by a 5-4 decision of the Court was purportedly to enhance freedom of speech, it has greatly tilted the political playing field in favor of the wealthy. And Republican candidates have benefited disproportionately. The pro-Romney SuperPAC, Restore Our Future, collected $18 million from two hundred donors in the second half of last year, with 10% of America’s billionaires contributing. Newt Gingrich’s SuperPAC, Winning The Future, received $10 million from hotel and gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife. Foster Freiss, a wealthy investor, is the main backer of Rick Santorum’s SuperPAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund. With no financial or other restrictions, the SuperPACs have concentrated on negative advertising, using attack ads that bend the truth to tear down opponents. Obama recently reversed his stand on SuperPAC funds to try and bolster his own fundraising to compete with the Republican organizations.
The advent of the SuperPACs promises to make the 2012 election the most expensive and most
How can America control the growth and power of these SuperPACs that allow the most affluent individuals and corporations to dominate the political dialogue? Though Citizens United could be overturned by a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, neither of these is very likely. However, increasing the transparency of the SuperPACs could have a significant effect. Donors might be more reluctant to contribute knowing that they and their businesses would be open to scrutiny if their names were promptly revealed. It would also show voters where the candidates were generating support and stockholders where their money was going.
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) was originally introduced in 2010. It was passed by the House and blocked by Republicans in the Senate on a party-line vote. Though most of its provisions appear to be common sense in a democratic system, the problem with the bill is that it was formulated by Democrats; Schumer, Leahy and Whitehouse in the Senate and Van Hollen in the House. It has been recently reintroduced, but without any bipartisan support, it is virtually dead on arrival in both Houses of Congress.
Among the important provisions of the DISCLOSE Act-
Would require explicit disclaimers for political ads- the top fund raiser would have to issue a disclaimer standing by the information given, similar to what candidates currently must do. And the five top donors to the organization would be listed on the screen at the end of the ad.
Corporations receiving federal contracts worth more than $50,000, foreign corporations, and companies that have not paid back their TARP money would be banned from spending money on federal elections.
The act would also require that donors of $10,000 or more be revealed within twenty-four hours, which would go a long way towards transparency.
Though the DISCLOSE Act has been opposed by the ACLU as well as Republicans as an infringement on free speech and privacy, it seems reasonable to have people and organizations who sponsor political advertisements stand behind their messages. It’s merely truth in advertising and anonymous negative ads have no place in our democracy.
In terms of political advertising in America (and everywhere else), it’s obvious that- money talks; always has and always will.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment