Coalition Letter on H.R. 4010, the DISCLOSE 2012 Act

February 15, 2012

US House of Representatives

Re: Support and Co-Sponsor H.R. 4010, the DISCLOSE 2012 Act

Dear Representative,

Our organizations strongly support H.R. 4010, the DISCLOSE 2012 Act, introduced last week by Representative Chris Van Hollen.

This legislation provides essential new disclosure requirements to cover the hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions being injected into federal elections by non-profit groups and other entities. The legislation also ensures that there will be timely disclosure by Super PACs.

We strongly urge you to support and co-sponsor H.R. 4010.

The organizations include: Americans for Campaign Finance Reform, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,

Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and the Sunlight Foundation.

A cardinal rule of campaign finance laws is that citizens are entitled to know the identity of and amounts given by the donors who are funding campaign expenditures to influence their votes.

This fundamental right to know has long been recognized in disclosure laws passed by Congress and in decisions by the Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of these laws.

Polls show the public overwhelming supports disclosure for candidate campaigns and outside spending groups. According to a New York Times article on a New York Times/CBS News poll released on October 28, 2010, Americans overwhelmingly, "favor full disclosure of spending by both campaigns and outside groups."

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United combined with ineffective FEC disclosure regulations opened gaping loopholes in the campaign finance disclosure laws.

The Disclose 2012 Act closes these loopholes. It also provides effective disclosure for the recently created Super PACs which are playing a dangerous new role in our elections as a result of the Citizens United decision and a subsequent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the SpeechNow case.

Unlike the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, the new DISCLOSE 2012 Act focuses solely on disclosure requirements. It does not contain any of the nondisclosure provisions that were in the 2010 legislation, such as the restrictions on expenditures by government contractors. And unlike the 2010 legislation, the bill does not contain any special exceptions for any group.

With the new legislation, the choice for members of Congress is clear: do you support disclosure to provide citizens with basic information they have a right to know or do you support secret money being spent to influence our elections?

The new legislation would ensure that citizens know on a timely basis the identities of and amounts given by donors who are funding campaign expenditures by tax-exempt organizations. The legislation would also fix the problem of untimely disclosure of the donors to Super PACs supporting federal candidates. This problem arose in the 2012 presidential election when the disclosure of most of the donors to presidential candidate-specific Super PACs did not occur until after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida primaries were over.

The new legislation also requires Super PACs and other "independent" spending entities that run broadcast ads to identify their top five donors, and the amounts they gave, in each TV ad, either by listing the information in the ad or by running a crawl at the bottom of the ad with the information. The bill also requires the top official of the group to appear in each TV ad and take responsibility for it.

The Citizens United decision striking down the ban on corporate expenditures in federal campaigns has done enormous damage to our political system. But even in this decision, the Supreme Court by an 8 to 1 vote made clear that laws requiring outside groups to disclose their campaign expenditures and the donors financing them are constitutional and necessary.

The Court stated:

The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court stated that disclosure is justified based on "a governmental interest in 'provid[ing] the electorate with information' about the sources of election-related spending. " The Court noted the problem of independent spending groups running campaign-related ads "while hiding behind dubious and misleading names."

There is no legitimate policy basis or constitutional basis for a member of the House to oppose the DISCLOSE 2012 Act. Enactment of this legislation will provide the American people with basic campaign finance information that they have fundamental right to know.

We strongly urge you to co-sponsor H.R. 4010 and to take all necessary steps to help ensure that it is considered on the House floor and passed in 2012.

Americans for Campaign Reform Democracy 21

Brennan Center for Justice League of Women Voters,

Campaign Legal Center People For the American Way

Citizens for Responsibility Public Campaign

and Ethics in Washington Public Citizen

Common Cause Sunlight Foundation

Leave a Comment

Take Action

The Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Tell Congress to fix the court’s bad decision!

Take action.


Give Today