“You can’t tell the players without a scorecard” is a time-honored way of saying that it is helpful to know the identity of those involved in a baseball game. It’s meaning has been extended to cover any circumstance in which the identity of a participant is important. That’s especially true in politics, where the identity of some major donors is becoming extremely difficult to discern. For that, Americans can thank the U.S. Supreme Court’ and its ruling in the Citizens United case.
For those unfamiliar with the ruling, the decision allows unions and companies the same right as individuals to make unlimited political contributions without identifying themselves in most instances. That’s dangerous to the public and to a free and fair political system.
Unions and companies generally have more money than individuals and often are willing to spend it freely to influence the outcome of an election. Their goal, though the big spenders deny it, is simple. They believe, rightly in many instances, that a heavy contribution now to a candidate who wins election in November will reap generous benefits in the future when it comes time to call in a favor on a vote. Venality in high political circles being what it is these days, that belief has credence.
There’s little doubt that the Citizens United ruling has had an immediate and negative impact. Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that political spending by those freed by the ruling has soared. They’ve spent $80 million so far this year. That’s about five times what was spent at a similar point in the election cycle in 2006, the last campaign comparable to the current one. In 2006, according to the Post, more than 90 percent of the contributions were linked to the identity of the donor. This year, less than half have been similarly identified.
Such activity is the antithesis of an open political system and government. It’s difficult enough to gauge the intentions of candidates and their backers when a broad array of information is available. It is simply impossible to make a sensible, informed decision if the identity of those supporting a candidate or attempting to promote or defeat an issue remain unidentified.
Those in favor of open government and fair politics should demand legislation to undo what the high court’s Citizens United ruling has done. Thoughtful politicians and citizens have created the Disclose Act to do that. Unfortunately, Republicans in the U.S. Senate don’t want that to happen.
That’s the only conclusion that can be reached. The House has approved its version of the bill, which would require corporate and union donors to be disclosed by independent groups. That’s not the best resolution of the issue, but it is a workable one. The Senate, however, has refused to pass similar legislation. Twice.
There’s a reason for such truculence. The Washington Post story said the money from donors without identity is going to GOP candidates by a 7-1 margin. No wonder Republicans prefer the status quo. It’s to their benefit. Never mind that it turns the notion of political accountability on its head.