Insiders RacketCongress' latest campaign-finance "reform" bill known as the Disclose Act was a rotten piece of legislation even before its sponsors last week carved out an exemption for one of the Beltway's largest lobbying groups. This move — breathtaking in its ice-cold cynicism even by Washington standards — demonstrated that the measure isn't about principled reform, but about maintaining the incumbent power-game status quo. The Disclose Act is a response to the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in the Citizens United case, which held that corporations, labor unions and political groups had First Amendment free-speech rights to urge Americans to vote for or against candidates for federal office. Members of Congress, appalled at the idea of groups having the same freedom of speech as individuals, have fought back by proposing onerous restrictions on organizations that exercise this constitutionally protected speech and on the corporations that fund them. These include: Requiring business leaders and other donors to appear on camera and endorse their advertisement. Disclosing the names of donors giving as little as $600. Prohibiting corporations from engaging in pre-election political speech if 20 percent or more of their equity is owned by foreign nationals. Those and other Byzantine new regulations are promoted as bringing much-needed transparency to campaign financing. But what they really will do is silence critics of politicians by making speech so burdensome that people will throw up their hands and stay silent rather than attempt to navigate the complex rules and risk incurring penalties for non-compliance. Forcing donors to appear in ads would crowd out the core message.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the legislation, worries that disclosing the names of small donors violates individual privacy and would chill free speech on controversial issues. That's exactly what happened in California, where people who contributed to an anti-gay marriage referendum in 2008 faced harassment and job discrimination when their names were made public. The prohibition on foreign corporate ownership is meant to keep foreign nationals from affecting U.S. elections — a reasonable goal. But the 20 percent threshold is so low it would prevent well-known American-based companies with foreign investors such as Verizon from speaking out on important domestic issues (like, say, sweeping telecommunications regulations). Furthermore, the restrictions don't apply to international labor unions, such as the SEIU, or international advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace. But don't think it's only left-leaning, Democrat-friendly groups getting a pass. Last week, the National Rifle Association negotiated an exemption from Disclose Act regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations with large memberships — i.e., the NRA and a handful of others. All the smaller guys? They're still under Uncle Sam's thumb. Way to stand on principle, NRA! The gun lobby will fight tooth and nail to oppose any restrictions on the Second Amendment. But when it comes to protecting the First Amendment, well, that's negotiable — "Free speech for me, but not for thee." That further gives credence to the perception that campaign finance laws — which over the years have done nothing to reduce the amount of money in politics — are simply an incumbent and insiders protection racket, designed to silence opposing voices. The Disclose Act is an affront to the First Amendment. REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY NEWS HERALD. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
