Shine light on all political shadows

Disclosure rules must be equally strict for corporations, advocacy groups and unions
I f Congress is to repair campaign finance laws washed away by a Supreme Court ruling giving corporations and special interests free speech rights, it must not do so in a way that gives any side a political advantage.

wyden.JPGSen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

The campaign disclosure bill recently offered by four Democratic senators, including Ron Wyden of Oregon, would be a major improvement over the tattered remnants of existing campaign law. But as written, it does not pass the test of political fairness.

The Senate bill, known as the Disclose Act, is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which lifted bans on corporate spending to influence elections. President Obama strongly criticized the ruling and warned that it could lead to a "corporate takeover of our elections."

The bill offered by Wyden, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and others would require corporations, unions, trade associations and advocacy groups to identify themselves on the political advertisements they pay for. Corporate executives, advocacy group leaders and union heads all would have to appear on television ads themselves, offering something like the "I approved this message" statement now required of candidates running commercials.

We're fine with that part of the bill. But a few unfair restrictions are tucked into the fine print of the Disclose Act.

For example, it would prohibit companies that do more than $50,000 a year in business with the government or receive federal bailout money from contributing to political campaigns. If only $50,000 is such a glaring conflict of interest, why aren't public employee unions, whose members' pay, benefits and staffing levels are set by elected officials, subject to the same restriction?

The Disclose Act also would ban U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies from making political contributions if a foreign national owns 20 percent or more of the voting shares in tahe company, or if foreign nationals make up a majority of the board of directors. Again, though the bill puts no limits on the foreign involvement of unions with a global reach. Why not?

One answer, of course, is that unions are the largest contributors to the majority Democrats. Not surprisingly, no Senate Republicans have offered their support for the Disclose Act. Only two GOP members in the House have signed on to companion legislation. Democrats and their supporters are trying to chalk all this off to more Republican obstructionism, but in this case, the GOP is right: This bill is about enshrining into campaign finance law a political advantage to Democrats.

There's still time to get this bill right and get it passed with some bipartisan support. There is broad agreement that our political system needs more sunlight -- there is a real danger of allowing Big Business and Big Labor to make massive political contributions and hide their involvement behind innocuous sounding names.

With the Internet, there's no reason why every political contribution, of any size, is not required to be publicly posted the day it is received and easily traceable to its real source. But if Congress is to require new and stronger disclosure of campaign donations -- and it should -- it must apply the same rules and limits to donors all across the political spectrum, and that includes unions and corporations alike.