To Write an Argument Essay

Support Disclosure Laws

The world of campaign finance has always had a shadowy history. No event better illustrates the secretive nature of money transfers than the Watergate scandal, when undisclosed piles of corporate cash were funneled to political candidates in paper bags. The scandal influenced Congress to pass a law in 1974 requiring the disclosure of political contributions to candidates and political committees (Hasen). Now corporations and wealthy donors are taking advantage of loopholes in the law to anonymously contribute huge sums of money to supposedly independent political action committees (PACs) that use the funds to buy political advertising to support or attack certain candidates. Such ads can swing elections—and candidates. There needs to be more transparency in campaign-related expenditures. Congress should pass a law requiring timely disclosure of donors to super PACs and disclosure of where the money is spent.

First of all, a disclosure law will prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. Currently, individuals and corporations can contribute no more than $2,500 per election to federal candidates. The main reason the Supreme Court upholds the limit’s constitutionality is because large contributions can lead to actual or perceived corruption of those candidates. For instance, if a candidate received an unusually large contribution from a donor, he or she might feel gratitude and distort policies in the donor’s favor. Super PACs need to be held to the same standard. Currently, donors can contribute unlimited sums to PACs, and those funds can be used in support of, or opposition to, federal candidates, as long as the PAC doesn’t “officially” align with the candidate’s campaign. The case for corruption, real or perceived, is strong. Disclosing to the public who contributes what to a super PAC would be the first step in deterring real corruption. A candidate may be less likely to skew a decision in a donor’s favor if the American public were informed of the donor-candidate relationship. At the same time, disclosure would help donors who give without ulterior motives, freeing them of perceived corruption.

Similarly, passing a disclosure rule will at least hold super PACs and other political committees to some of the same campaign finance standards as candidates are held to. For example, when a political candidate finances a political advertisement, he or she is required to approve the ad’s message. The approval tells the public that the message

is coming from and is funded by the candidate. Super PACs are not required to declare an approval in their messages. In the 2012 elections, super PACs spent millions of dollars on political advertisements, many attacking candidates they did not support (Stein). Mandating that PACs approve political advertisements just like candidates do is a fair and necessary step to keeping the public informed. Additionally, disclosing a PAC’s top five donors during the advertisement (through at crawl at the bottom of the screen) would be another effective way to keep the public in the know.

Transparency is the most important reason to support a disclosure law. Voters ought to have as much access to information as possible in order to make wise choices. Right now, super PACs are held to leisurely disclosure policies. They need to report spending only on a monthly or quarterly basis. During primary season, PACs may fund special political advertisements in states and not disclose the spending until after votes have been collected, making the information useless to citizens. A more timely disclosure policy needs to be in place. With the immediacy of the Internet, it would not be unreasonable to require super PACs to report their spending and reveal their donors every 24 or 48 hours. Voters should not be kept in the dark.

Critics will argue that disclosure laws are unreasonable and may chill participation in politics or even violate first amendment rights. However, campaign finance laws have not curbed the number of people who can spend money, only how much money they can spend. The goal is to level the playing field. And to call disclosure laws unreasonable is, well, unreasonable. After all, disclosure laws for the PACs will not place limits on spending; they will only require disclosure of who is doing the spending and on what. The anonymity of donors is less important than preventing corruption and providing the electorate with complete information about political campaigns.

The political climate of the United States is already rife with distrust and skepticism. Allowing super PACs and wealthy super PAC donors to influence elections under the veil of anonymity only adds to the public’s suspicion. Laws should require lobbyists to disclose their campaign contributions to PACs, should force corporations to tell shareholders about their campaign contributions, and should mandate that super PACs offer a timely disclosure of how they spend their money. These provisions are not only reasonable; they are necessary to prevent corruption and to keep the American public informed. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”