Next week, the U.S. Senate has a chance to do its part to remedy the worst of the ills caused by unlimited corporate spending on American political speech. Debate is scheduled to begin Monday on the DISCLOSE Act. That's an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections -- and it's not just a clever bill title, but a capsule version of the strong case for its enactment.
This newspaper's Editorial Board did not react with the alarm that was sounded in many quarters two and a half years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court lifted bans on corporate campaign spending. It's not that we relished the thought of well-heeled individuals, corporations, unions and organizations buying all the microphones and megaphones during a political campaign.
Rather, we were heartened by the high court's support for laws that allow voters to know who is paying for campaign messages, along with enough information about their identities and affiliations to allow voters to at least surmise their motives.
That portion of the otherwise 5-4 Citizens United ruling won 8-1 backing on the nine-member court. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority: "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions."
To its credit, the 2010 Minnesota Legislature took Kennedy's words to heart. It promptly updated state campaign-finance laws to require disclosure of donors to the new independent-expenditure groups unleashed by Citizens United, now known as super PACs.
That made Minnesotans witness in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign to the value of disclosure in the new post-Citizens United environment. When Target Corp. gave $150,000 to MN Forward, a new business-spawned coalition backing GOP candidate Tom Emmer, Minnesotans and the rest of the nation knew about it quickly. Opponents of Emmer's views could and did respond -- so strongly, in fact, that a chastened Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized a few weeks later, and Target's policies about political donations were revised.
That episode was possible because state law controlled the governor's race. U.S. House and Senate races and the presidential race are governed by federal law, which does not include super PAC disclosure standards. In 2010, the U.S. House -- then under Democratic control -- approved a disclosure bill, only to be foiled by the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome filibusters in the U.S. Senate.
Republican opposition to DISCLOSE has hardened since then. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell justifies that position by claiming that politically active corporations ought to be shielded from a reaction of the sort Target experienced. He claims that the DISCLOSE Act is "an attempt to identify and punish political enemies."
