OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Dems Re-Intro Super PAC Disclosure Bill

February 21, 2012 - by Donny Shaw

One of the best ways to understand why Congress does what it does is to follow the money. Take a look at which corporations and unions are donating to members of Congress who support their pet bills and you can start to see the networks of influence that partly control what legislation gets considered and how senators and representatives vote.

Unfortunately, in our post-Citizens United v. F.E.C. world, following the money is becoming much more difficult. In the 2012 presidential contest, Super PACs, which do not have to publicly disclose where all of their money comes from, have officially overtaken candidate campaigns in election fundraising and spending. Any semblance of separation between Super PACs and campaigns has completely disappeared as well, meaning that the traditional, regulated and disclosed candidate campaign has basically been replaced by the unlimited, secretive Super PAC.

The supremacy of the Super PAC will undoubtedly carry over into the 2012 Senate and House elections. That means that while candidates for Congress themselves will know exactly which corporations and unions bankrolled their surrogate campaigns, public information on money in politics will be obscured by references to shell organizations set up to funnel money to candidates anonymously under new loopholes in campaign finance laws. In the wake of the Citizens United decision, the usefulness of publicly-accessible money-in-politics data has been seriously damaged, and if current trends continue it will soon be more misleading than it is illuminating.

If Congress respects the public’s right to know who finance their elected officials, they should immediately pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would require all organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors in a timely manner, and to reveal their identities in all political advertisements that they fund. The bill, which passed the House in the last session of Congress but rejected in the Senate, has been reintroduced in the House by Rep. Chris Van Hollen [D, MD]. It already has 117 co-sponsors. Unfortunately, not a single Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor, and with Republicans controlling the House the Democrats that support the bill can not bring it to a vote. Van Hollen is planning to file a discharge petition to bypass the committee process and force a vote on the bill, but he needs the support of a majority of the House to be successful, which is unlikely with the Democrats in the minority.

Congressional Republicans’ arguments against the DISCLOSE Act have focused on claims that the bill violates organizations’ right to express free speech through spending money on political campaigns.

Of course, requiring complete, timely disclosure of corporate and union donations to Super PACs is just the tip of the campaign-finance-system iceberg that needs to be fixed. Congress needs to reassert their power to regulate federal campaign spending, corporate personhood should be revoked, and a robust public financing system should be created to ensure that citizen candidates can compete with wealthy, connected incumbents. The influence of money in politics is at the core of all other political issues, and if we want to start fixing the system we need to make campaign-finance reform a bigger part of our voting decisions and political activism.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


  • katielabore 02/23/2012 3:33pm

    Of course, requiring complete, timely disclosure of corporate and union donations to Super PACs is just the tip of the campaign-finance-system iceberg that needs to be fixed.

    An understatement if I ever saw one. I have been reading “Republic: Lost” by Lawrence Lessig. His scheme for fixing the campaign financing problem is the best and most workable I’ve seen, and I wonder why no member of Congress has yet attempted to work his citizen voucher proposal into legislation.

    I will be keeping an eye on the DISCLOSE Act, but frankly, I don’t think it has much promise. It doesn’t go far enough to attract huge support from citizens, and without bi-partisan support in Congress it’ll just die like so many other reform attempts. Come on, Congress! Huge problems demand big thinking. Lessig has already done the lion’s share of it; now let’s support his idea and GET REAL with campaign finance reform.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • katielabore 02/24/2012 12:02pm

    I think Congresspeople are tired of being 24/7 fundraisers. Lessig’s plan will get them out from under the need to be constantly raising money. So, yes. I have hope that they would be for such a plan as he proposes.

    If you think you don’t agree, go read Lessig’s book before you dismiss the idea.

  • aaroncavanaugh2 02/25/2012 2:32am


    Thank you for posting this article.

    Thanks. God Bless.


  • aross 02/27/2012 2:26am

    Test comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Redfray 03/19/2012 5:24pm

    This would be the easest bill to solve this problem. All people giving money for electing a person to a public office shall appear in person, and place name address on ledger, and amount given. All amounts of monies given can not exceed 100.00 dollars. No organization can donate any money to an election campaign at any level of government. No organizations, tax exempt or private, can donate any monies, compensation, or free monetary campaign help to any potential canidate at any political level. Any one caught will be punished by losing all rights to vote in any government election at any level of government.

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.