The Supreme Court, in their Citizens United decision, said that money is speech, but even they thought that the name of the donors should be disclosed. Of course, Republicans are against it:
The bill is a reintroduction of similar legislation that came close to passing last Congress. That bill won 59 votes in the Senate in 2010, falling one vote shy of overcoming a Republican-led filibuster.
Their reason (ok, the reason the Chamber of Commerce is against it):
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful lobby force and a heavy political spender, was a vocal opponent to the Disclose Act last Congress, and attacked the new bill as a “politically-motivated” attack on free speech.
”It is unfortunate that certain politicians want to single out and stifle the speech of one group — the business community — under the guise of ‘disclosure.’ This is a transparent, politically-motivated effort to seek out and punish a competing viewpoint in the political discourse,” said Blair Latoff, a Chamber spokeswoman.
Ya see, this is democracy in action (via here):
An anonymous donor gave $10 million late last year to run ads attacking President Obama and Democratic policies, escalating the money race that is defining the 2012 presidential campaign. And in the new, free-wheeling environment of independent political giving, the identity of this donor, like many others, is likely to remain a permanent mystery.
The donation went to Crossroads GPS, the conservative nonprofit group founded with the support of political strategist Karl Rove. Another donor gave $10 million in the 2010 midterm elections, according to draft tax returns that provide the first detailed look at its finances.
Crossroads GPS and its sister group, American Crossroads, hope to spend up to $300 million in the 2012 election cycle,promoting conservative ideas and helping elect Republicans up and down the ballot.
The tax returns show that Crossroads GPS has collected the vast majority of its donations from the super-rich. The forms show that nearly 90 percent of its contributions through the end of 2011 had come from as few as two dozen donors, each giving $1 million or more. Overall, the nonprofit group raised more than $76 million since it was founded in May 2010 through the end of 2011.
At least it’s the way democracy should work according to corporations. They should be able to say and do anything they want with no repercussions and since disclosure of political donations could affect sales, there shouldn’t be disclosure. On the other hand, many of us think that with rights come responsibilities–I have a right to speech, but others have a right to respond. And we think unlimited anonymous money in politics has a corrosive effect on democracy, which is why we, at a minimum, think the large donors should be disclosed. If you agree, sign the petition to try to get the DISCLOSE act passed.
Rick Hasen talks about the Senate hearings here.