Disclosure & Transparency is the Least We Can Expect. . .

The process of participating in the political process has changed dramatically over the course of the past year.  In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that, for the purposes of campaign contributions, organizations are citizens and have the right to "unlimited spending in pursuit of political ends."  This is a change of titanic magnitude in our political system.

I have very mixed thinking about the decision.  I generally support free market and libertarian sorts of ideas—including completely unlimited freedom of speech.  But, the power of unlimited corporate contributions in politics does daunt me.  In the wake of this decision however, there is one absolute – we must have transparency in these contributions. Whether by individuals or corporations, all donations to political campaigns, political action committees, the 527 advocacy groups, and the host of non-profit organizations that have grown up doing the bidding of political movements, must be publicly disclosed immediately.  Without transparency, what we have is a political system driven by propaganda (which is commonly differentiated from ‘advertising’ by its lack of identifiable source).  

This issue has new interest in the wake of some recent events.  We had the humorous ‘mock news’ reporter Jon Stewart on the  “The Daily Show” pointing out that the supposedly terrorism-tainted Saudi prince (whose foundation might contribute to the Islamic center much maligned on Fox News), Walid bin Talal, is not only the biggest non-Murdoch shareholder in Fox News’s parent company (he owns 7 percent of News Corporation), but is also the recipient of Murdoch’s mammoth investments in Saudi Arabia.
 
Then, there was a great analysis, “Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers Who are Waging A War Against Obama,” by Jane Mayer appearing in The New Yorker.  Its examination of the political funding apparatus of industrialists Charles and David Koch (Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, KochPAC, and Koch Industries) is fascinating.  These two men, alone, are responsible for a host of ‘political brands’ that we are exposed to every day –  the Cato Institute, George Mason University, the Mercatus Center, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for the Environment, Americans for Prosperity, Century Strategies, and “Tea Party Talking Points.” 

I support the right of these individuals to say whatever they want, and to fund the means to move their message forward.  However, it is full disclosure and transparency that are a necessity.  Unfortunately, the very modest Disclose Act, which requires corporations to show how they spend money in elections, was recently defeated by Republican filibuster.  Without that, we are left with citizen action—which frequently comes in the form of consumerism—as our only recourse.  Target is one corporation that recently learned exactly how their political investments can impact their relationship with their customers.  It donated $150,000 to Minnesota Forward, a group channeling funds to Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer—known for his opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.  As a result, the company now faces both a consumer boycott and a movement by institutional stakeholders asking for a "comprehensive review" of Target's political donation process.  Still, I think that to rely solely on investigative journalism and institutional investor actions is silly.  We need transparency and disclosure.   After all, why would political contributors want to hide what they really believe?