The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Editorials

Related Photos

  • ed8-27.jpg

    ed8-27.jpg

August 26, 2010

Our View: Corporate donations shouldn't be secret

The Free Press

Free speech isn’t exactly free when we can’t see who’s talking.

And democracy gets a little less democratic when corporations can spend millions of dollars on attack ads against political candidates under the cover of secrecy. But that’s what’s happening, compliments of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court ruling earlier this year removed a long-standing prohibition in campaign finance rules for corporations funding candidates. Corporations have poured millions into their free speech rights.

But the public doesn’t like it. Voters feel cheated. A Pew Research poll showed a large majority of Americans disagreed with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC, in which the court ruled 5-4 that corporations can directly fund political campaigns. Pew’s poll showed 68 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision, while 17 percent approved.

Heeding the call of popular opinion, Congress in June attempted to pass legislation that would require corporations to at least disclose their purchases of advertising and funding of campaigns. The legislation that was approved by the House of Representatives also required the CEO of these corporations to make the now familiar “I approve this message” tagline on all the ads. The bill went to the Senate, where it fell three votes short of overriding the Republican minority’s block of discussion.

Unfortunately, Congress created exceptions for disclosure for organizations like the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, two of the most powerful organizations in the country.

The Minnesota Legislature passed a disclosure law after the Supreme Court decision and it has resulted in recent controversy over Target Corp. channeling money to an organization that supported Republican Tom Emmer for governor. Interest groups protested the donation because Emmer is against gay marriage. Target and other corporations say they are evaluating their policies. In this case, disclosure is working and allowing people to get involved politically.

But the Minnesota law is being challenged in court on grounds that it denies corporations their free speech rights, by requiring them to disclose expenses that are defacto campaign contributions.

Regular citizens who donate $200 to candidates have to make the disclosure. Why exempt multi-billion dollar corporations?

Disclosure of corporate donations should be mandatory at federal and state levels. There should be no exemptions for the NRA or anyone else. That’s just the right thing to do, and Congress should do it sooner than later.

Allowing secrecy is not only unfair to donors who must disclose their identity, but undermines public confidence in a system that already has millions of voters saying it’s not worth their time.

Corporations already have tremendous power to influence democracy through lobbying and access to elected leaders. They will have even more power if they’re allowed to spend unlimited sums under the cloak of secrecy.

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials