The predictable fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving corporate spending on political campaigns has now happened. Legislation is being proposed to require corporations to disclose their behind-the-scenes roles in political campaign funding and advertising.
Opponents to disclosure legislation will have a tough time making a moral, ethical, political or legal argument. The democratic American electoral and political systems are built on openness. The days of smoke-filled backroom politics and government have largely been sent to the ash bin of history by federal and state government-in-the-sunshine laws.
The reminders of why such disclosure legislation is needed are fresh: In the run-up to passage of health care reform, the health care industry spent millions of dollars, often covertly through sham front groups, to try to defeat the historic law.
Providing clear information about which corporations are putting their considerable fortunes where to affect the outcome of an election or a vote in Congress provides voters with perspectives on the possible motives for corporate influence.
There's another benefit to a transparent election campaign process. Politicians and political groups will also be more prudent in accepting donations from corporations whose past influence through concealed funds has been to the detriment of consumers and to forthright government.
The quality of the U.S. political system is directly linked to whether voters are fully informed of the sources of the millions of dollars donated to elect officeholders and to influence legislation.
