In the dark
The Republicans' hypocrisy about campaign finance reform
In the dark
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In a conference call with reporters the other day, Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, said that the Senate Republicans should remain true to their convictions concerning a key facet of campaign finance reform. After all, the proposed DISCLOSE Act would require that special interests reveal the names of the backstage deep-pocket donors who will bankroll the election-season political ads - and it's the Republicans who have long said that they support the credo of full disclosure.
Potter, a Republican who was appointed to the FEC by the first President Bush, said on the phone that the DISCLOSE Act would at least mitigate the worst damage wreaked on the political process by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent horrific decision to permit virtually unlimited special interest spending in federal elections. Under the proposed reform law, he said, at least the public would know "who is doing that spending" - which is better than having a flood of autumn ads sponsored by mysterious front groups with nebulous names, "something like 'Paid for by Americans for a Better Country,' and you have no idea who that is or who actually paid for those ads."
But what bugged Potter the most was the Senate GOP's current lockstep obstruction to any such disclosure. "That pains me," he said, "particularly because, for years, (my fellow Republicans) said that, 'well, all we needed was disclsoure.' And now that that's all we're going to get (in a reform law), they don't want us to have that either...So I have been urging Republicans to step forward...What I'm hoping is that Republican senators who have long stood for (disclosure) will reach across the aisle."
Reach across the aisle?! Cue the laughter.
Today's GOP would never listen to someone like Potter anyway. In today's GOP, a Republican from the senior Bush era is probably dismissed as a flaming socialist.
So, yesterday afternoon, when the DISCLOSE Act came up for a key Senate vote, every single Republican (including conviction-free John McCain, the erstwhile campaign reform champion) blocked its path and ensured that voters will be kept in the dark. The bill itself is far from perfect - it has some awful compromises, most of which were designed (in vain) to attract moderate Republicans - but the principle was solid and quite simple to comprehend: The public has the right to know who's laying out the big bucks for all those special interest ads; if well-heeled donors are free to spend whatever they want, then at least tell the public who they are.
And that's precisely what the Republicans have always argued in the past. That was candidate George W. Bush's position during the 2000 campaign.
That was Senator Mitch McConnell's position in 2000, when he said on Meet the Press, "Republicans are in favor of disclosure."
That was Senator Lamar Alexander's position in 1999 when he was running for president: "I support...free speech and full disclosure. In other words, any individual can give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed every day on the Internet."
That was Senator Jeff Sessions' position just three months ago: "I don't like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable...I tend to favor disclosure."
That was Senator John Cornyn's philosophical position just three months ago: "I think the system needs more transparency, so people can reach their own conclusions."
That was House GOP leader John Boehner's position in 2007: "I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disenfectant." But when the DISCLOSE Act came up in the House a few months ago, Boehner voted No.
If the Senate Republicans had hewed to their "full disclosure" principles, they would allowed the bill to advance. The most unwieldly provisions might have been stripped out. On a tight timetable, a new reform law might have been ready for the autumn midterms, so that the public would not be in the dark about the backstage donors. But yesterday the No team squelched that scenario.
There is a belief in some quarters that the Republicans might actually pay a political price for their hypocrisy; one Washington political commentator said yesterday that the Senate GOP's successful obstruction of the reform bill "could have a tangible effect on midterm elections in November." But that kind of forecast could only have come from a Washington commentator.
From my perspective outside the Beltway, I have a hard time believing that the average person will go to the polls four months from now and say, "Hey, honey, I'm gonna vote for all the Democratic candidates, because I'm still ticked off that the Senate Republicans prevented the Democrats from successfully invoking cloture on that DISCLOSE Act last July."
And as for the Democrats' autumn plans to paint the Republicans as captive allies of shadowy corporate interests - on the eve of the Senate reform tally, an Obama spokesman said that "the Republicans seem poised to vote en masse for the corporations" - I'll simply note that the public has long viewed the Republicans as "the party of big business," even while often supporting that party at the polls. Yesterday, the Senate Republicans obviously calculated that their hypocrisy on full disclosure will not hurt them in 2010, not in this current political environment. And they may well be right.
Dick, way to be a mouthpiece for the senate democrats. Why do you fail to mention the reasons why republicans voted against this bill? The bill is obviously a political stunt by the democrats to try to paint the republicans in a bad light before the election. And they have their loyal lapdogs in the media, like yourself, misrepresenting the republican perspective on the issue to achieve this end. You did not mention that, as Mitch McConnell said, the bill was brought to the floor "without hearings, without testimony, without studies, [and] without a [committee] markup." You also did not mention that republicans are against the exemptions, even though some of them would be on the conservative side, because they feel it gives an unfair advantage to certain groups, and this would violate first amendment rights. It is a pretty legitimate argument, but you wouldn't get any of this from your flawed analysis of the issue. The thing that makes me the most angry is that I'm sure you were well aware of the republican objections, and you may even be smart enough to understand that they're legit, but you neglected to include that information in your column anyway.— pete317- Neb... What is racist about following the law. One person, one vote. Or maybe you were offended at my reference to inner city polling places. Well, please help me here. When was the last time suburban polling places were forced to stay open late. It's reasonable that the percentage of working people is higher in suburbs, so if they can do it, why not everyone. And stop with the racist stuff. Enter the fray, make your point and defend it. But when you have no answer, dont yell Racist, we have enough of them in Obama's church and the white house.— Phil Checchia
- Phil Checchia : generally, in suburbia we have more polling places and they are larger. Usually, when the inner city poling places are allowed to stay open, they only do for those who ar ein line when they were scheduled to close. I'm sorry, but if you wait in line for hours, the "one man one vote" should still apply.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: what an intellectually dishonest answer. I ask again, how is more disclosure a bad thing? How is it a restriction of first ammendment rights? Trying to bring up Obama's non-use of public financing is inane. Know why? All donations over $500 must be disclosed. You (sometimes) love opensecrets.org. Where do you think their data comes from? So not only do corporations have first ammendment rights in addition to those of their shareholders, but they have the right to exercise them anonymously?— still_independent
- @Nebuchadrezzar II "Phil Checchia - racist much? Dear god, righties - is this what you've become? How pathetic." So now it's racist to demand that people only vote once and that they be eligible in accordance with the laws and the Constitution. Why is enforcing the voting law a racist practice in your mind? Do you also oppose the section of this legislation which would bar U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations from running campaign ads? If so, why? What is the difference between allowing non-citizens to vote, which you apparently favor, and allowing foreign corporations to run ads through their subsidiaries?— Fascinated
- "Swedesboromike: what an intellectually dishonest answer. I ask again, how is more disclosure a bad thing? How is it a restriction of first ammendment rights?" The Supreme Court has long since addressed the issue and determined that anonymous free speech is Constitutionally protected. That pretty much seems to end that discussion.— Fascinated
@CiceroSpuriousDeodatus - Rethuglicans!!!!! You are so CLEVER and ORIGINAL!
Rule or Ruin. The republicans have no other policies. No taxes, No government. No NO a thousand times no. End transmission from the brains of republican think tanks. New Democrat policy: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MUST BE DESTROYED.- chris, if it was truly a bill that discloses every dollar in every campaign from every source the GOP would be on board. But it clearly isn't that. Like I said when you can't get Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins on board it is likely a highly partisan bill & from comments I have read from Sen. Snowe it is being rushed through without the usual debate, etc. Why is it always a rush to do things at the last minute without knowing what exactly the bill will do? Because there is always back office nonsense and deal making in the fine print, that's why.— NEPhilly
- Chris this is the type of nonsense that ends up in these bills when there is little or no debate. *** So much for transparency. Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot. That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings." The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”*** http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/?test=latestnews— NEPhilly
- stillInd... Just when I thought you were making sense sometime. Why do you and other liberals insist on making excuses for illegal activity. Do you actually think that the long lines are a result of people in line at 8PM. And why do you think the polling places are smaller? They are usually schools. And lastly, why do you think this happens in big cities? I'll tell you stilllib, it's because democrats are in control of the cities, they permit it to happen and do not prosecute it.— Phil Checchia
- Still Independent- I fail to see how any of this matters as both sides have deep pockets funding campaigns. Republicans are not in any position to block anything so this all looks like a bunch of whining. Maybe tommorow your side can get back to calling us racists
- NEP - Because the new motto of the Dem's as stated by Nancy Pelosi. "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"— Mike Welbourn
- mike, how silly of me I forgot, but I didn't think she was talking about every bill they will ever pass into law:) This is what happens when you have legislation over 2000 pages long and no time to read it before a crisis ensues:) Our legislators don't even have time to read a bill with the final language included before they are required to vote. No sense it makes (w/apologies to the real yoda:)— NEPhilly
- Beam me up Scottie... Federal Judge ( Clinton Appointee ) has ruled against Arizona Law to Police Illegals. Police cant question them, and Lord help us, this idiot judge said that illegals can ask openly for work, AND DONT HAVE TO CARRY ANY ID. Pay attention anyone with a brain, the socialists have taken it to the next level. What think you Still?— Phil Checchia
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
