Democracy 21 Urges Senators to Vote For the DISCLOSE ACT
Democracy 21 Refutes Attacks by Chamber of Commerce and NRA on Campaign Finance Disclosure; Urges Senators to Vote for Cloture and Pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2012
In a letter sent to all Senators today, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer refuted the attacks made by the Chamber of Commerce and the NRA on campaign finance disclosure.
The letter urges Senators to support S.2219, the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, by voting for cloture on the legislation and for its passage.
The letter to Senators states:
If you have particular concerns about S.2219, we urge you to discuss possible changes in the bill with the sponsor of the legislation, rather than voting to block the Senate from even considering S.2219.
According to the letter:
The letter points out that the DISCLOSE Act is fully consistent with the Citizens United decision and other Supreme Court decisions upholding campaign finance disclosure laws.
The letter states:
The letter also notes:
The Citizens United decision carries forward the Supreme Court’s longstanding support for disclosure laws. In the landmark decision of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court upheld the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws, stating:
[D]isclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. This exposure may discourage those who would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election. A public armed with information about a candidate’s most generous supporters is better able to detect any post-election special favors that may be given in return. 79 And, as we recognized in Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S., at 548, Congress could reasonably conclude that full disclosure during an election campaign tends “to prevent the corrupt use of money to affect elections.” In enacting these requirements it may have been mindful of Mr. Justice Brandeis’ advice: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
The letter points out that the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that disclosure requirements “impermissibly ‘chill’ speech.” According to the letter:
The letter also notes:
Contrary to the claims of opponents, S.2219 is not “aimed” at the suppression of corporate speech and does not prevent any organization from speaking. The disclosure provisions of the legislation apply across-the-board to any group spending more than $10,000 on campaign-related expenditures, regardless of whether these expenditures are made by corporations, labor organizations, conservative groups, progressive groups, pro-Democratic groups or pro-Republican groups.
The letter explains that the $10,000 threshold for disclosure of donors to groups making campaign-related expenditures “is designed to narrowly tailor the disclosure requirements for all groups which are making campaign-related expenditures and which have a major purpose other than to influence elections.”
According to the letter:
By requiring disclosure only of substantial donors to such groups, the $10,000 threshold balances the interests that such groups have in privacy for their donors with the public’s interest in knowing the significant donors financing campaign activities.
The letter explains that opponents of the legislation “ignore important provisions of the bill that give organizations and donors the flexibility to limit the disclosure of a donor.”
The letter states:
The letter concludes:
Democracy 21 strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and urges you to vote for cloture on S.2219 and for passage of the legislation.