Ballot Vs. Bucks

Home/Editorial/Opinion
Savannah Morning News
February 2, 2010

NOW THAT corporations and unions can make direct contributions for federal campaign ads, it's more important than ever for voters to know who is bankrolling efforts to get a candidate elected or defeated.

Beyond the issue of outsized influence for American big business compared to the average American, there is also the increased likelihood of multinational corporations controlled by foreigners tinkering in the U.S. electoral process.

If a Chinese-held company pours money into an effort to get a senator elected or defeated, it would be interesting to know where the candidate stood on federal fiscal policy and U.S.-Chinese relations.

A similar dynamic would hold true for a Saudi-controlled company throwing its money behind a candidate.

The public has a right to know not only if the Saudis are backing a campaign, but also what the candidate's stance is on energy policy.

The danger in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowing corporations to spend from their own coffers on advocacy ads is that rich domestic or multinational companies will outbid average citizens on the purchase of policy.

Short of changing the law, the antidote is a combination of daylight and voter education. Let informed citizens more effectively wield the power of the ballot box.

Because the advent of direct corporate spending is so recent, there is no federal law on the disclosure of those contributions. Congress should remedy that void, and quickly, considering the soon-coming mid-term elections.

An alternative would be to broaden existing federal law governing nonprofit organization spending to include for-profit corporations.

Those rules require groups that spend $10,000 or more to report it within 48 hours; those who spend $1,000 or more within 20 days of an election must report it within 24 hours; groups that spend $50,000 in a calendar year must file reports electronically.

A more stringent proposal from voter advocacy groups also bears consideration: A new rule requiring 24-hour online reporting of all contributions of $200 or more from any source: Corporate, nonprofit or individual.

This idea has the benefit of making campaign contribution information available more quickly to voters.

Currently, spending information is reported to the Federal Elections Commission, which then relays information to the public.

A federal mandate requiring candidates to post donor information in an easily digestible format could go a long way toward offsetting the influence of moneyed benefactors. Such a mandate should come from Congress. Then there will be less quibbling over whether the executive branch FEC is carrying out the will of legislators.

Running in tandem with the increased funding and beefed up reporting requirements is the need for improved voter education. Individual voters bear some responsibility in this.

But news organizations must also rise to the occasion, becoming more vigilant to point out connections between a candidate's donors and the individual's personal ties and past voting records.

U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, is right when he says, "There is no better antiseptic than sunlight and there is no better sunlight that disclosure." Voters must do their part to ensure they're making their choices in the full light of day.

http://savannahnow.com/opinion/2010-02-02/ballot-vs-bucks

Savannahnow.com, Savannah Morning News ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.