W\u00e4hrend sich Senatoren auf die Debatte vorbereiten, Hintergr\u00fcnde und Erkenntnisse von Common Cause<\/p>
An: Reporter und Meinungsautoren:<\/p>
Nachfolgend finden Sie zu Ihrer Information ein Memo zum DISCLOSE Act, dessen Debatte f\u00fcr Anfang n\u00e4chster Woche im US-Senat vorgesehen ist. <\/p>
Die Senatsf\u00fchrer haben Montag und m\u00f6glicherweise Dienstag, den 16. und 17. Juli, f\u00fcr die Debatte \u00fcber eine neue und vereinfachte Version des DISCLOSE Act (S. 3369) reserviert. Der von Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) eingebrachte und von 27 weiteren Senatoren mitgetragene Gesetzentwurf w\u00fcrde neue, dringend notwendige Anforderungen f\u00fcr die Ver\u00f6ffentlichung von Informationen \u00fcber politische Ausgaben von Unternehmen und Gewerkschaften bei Bundeswahlen auferlegen. Die verbesserten Offenlegungsstandards w\u00fcrden Schlupfl\u00f6cher im geltenden Gesetz schlie\u00dfen, die es sogenannten Super PACs erm\u00f6glicht haben, die wahren Quellen ihrer Einnahmen vor der \u00d6ffentlichkeit zu verbergen. Dieses Memorandum soll die Gr\u00fcnde und grundlegenden Bestimmungen des Gesetzes sowie seine Bedeutung f\u00fcr unser politisches System darlegen.<\/p>
HINTERGRUND<\/p>
Since January 2010, when the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations and labor unions can draw unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries to influence elections, advocates of campaign finance reform have made strengthened disclosure requirements their top priority. In 2010, \"independent\" groups that shielded their donors from disclosure made more than $132 million in campaign-related expenditures, according to the Sunlight Foundation. A flood of secret spending in the 2012 presidential primaries appears certain to grow into a tsunami by this fall.<\/p>
The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act of 2010 (DISCLOSE Act), drafted shortly after the Citizens United decision, passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote (219-206) in 2010 and was supported by 59 of 100 senators; it died when supporters in the Senate could not muster a 60th vote to break a Republican-led filibuster. While S. 3369 differs from the 2010 legislation in significant respects (detail below), all the changes have been tailored to address specific objections from senators who opposed the previous version; because of that, the new bill is likely to garner majority support and is threatened chiefly by obstructionists using the Senate's filibuster rule.<\/p>
HIGHLIGHTS VON S. 3369<\/p>
The bill requires organizations - unions, corporations, political action committees Super PACs - that make more than $10,000 in \"campaign-related disbursements\" to disclose the name of any donor providing $10,000 or more to finance that spending. This requirement would close a loophole in current law that allows tax-exempt \"Super PACs\" and groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to shield the identities of the donors financing their political spending.<\/p>
Das Gesetz w\u00fcrde erst am 1. Januar 2013 in Kraft treten.<\/p>
\u00c4NDERUNGEN GEGEN\u00dcBER DER GESETZGEBUNG VON 2010<\/p>
S. 3369 is a \"clean\" bill; provisions from the 2010 legislation banning political spending by government contractors, placing additional disclosure requirements on political spending by lobbyists, and limiting political spending by U.S. corporations that are partially owned by foreign firms, have been stripped out of S. 3369. Also gone are \"Stand by your ad,\" provisions that would have required independent groups broadcasting political ads to list the names of their top donors within each ad. <\/p>
PRO UND CONTRA<\/p>
The DISCLOSE Act is grounded in the principle expressed by the late Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis that \"sunshine is the best disinfectant.\" DISCLOSE supporters argue that secret money in politics is an invitation to corruption and that public release of the identity of donors makes elected officials less inclined to risk the negative publicity and potential criminal prosecution that would follow attempts to reward those donors. For the same reason, disclosure makes donors less likely to seek political favors, they assert. DISCLOSE supporters also believe that in evaluating messages from and about political candidates, voters have a right to know who is paying for those messages.<\/p>
In Citizens United, an 8-1 majority of the Supreme Court declared disclosure requirements constitutional. \"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 message,\" the Court said. In Doe v. Reed, a case decided shortly after Citizens United, Justice Antonin Scalia eloquently made the case for disclosure: \"Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which.campaigns anonymously.and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.\"<\/p>
Der republikanische Senatsf\u00fchrer Mitch McConnell und die US-Handelskammer haben sich als die prominentesten Gegner der Offenlegungspflicht herausgestellt. Beide argumentieren, dass das DISCLOSE-Gesetz den Unternehmen Belastungen auferlegen w\u00fcrde, die f\u00fcr Gewerkschaften nicht gelten, und dass sein eigentlicher Zweck darin bestehe, die Unternehmen aus der politischen Arena zu dr\u00e4ngen. Sie behaupten, dass die Unternehmen lieber ihre Scheckb\u00fccher schlie\u00dfen und schweigen w\u00fcrden, als Boykotte von Verbrauchern zu riskieren, die mit ihren politischen Ausgaben nicht einverstanden sind, oder Vergeltungsma\u00dfnahmen von gew\u00e4hlten Amtstr\u00e4gern, die von dem Gesetz betroffen sind. <\/p>
The DISCLOSE Act \"is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies.\" McConnell said in a widely-publicized speech last month. \"Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they'll find other ways to do it.\"<\/p>
ANALYSE<\/p>
The arguments against DISCLOSE do not stand up to scrutiny. Disclosure laws already on the books protect individual and corporate speakers from harassment and allow those who can show they've been injured to seek an exemption from disclosure requirements. Consumer boycotts by individuals who disagree with a particular corporation's speech are not harassment and are themselves a constitutionally-protected form of free expression.<\/p>
Das DISCLOSE-Gesetz behandelt politische Ausgaben von Unternehmen und Gewerkschaften gleich. Wenn eine Gewerkschaft, die politische Ausgaben t\u00e4tigt, von einem Mitglied Beitr\u00e4ge von mehr als $10.000 verlangt oder Spenden von diesem Mitglied in H\u00f6he von insgesamt mehr als $10.000 annimmt, w\u00e4re eine Offenlegung erforderlich. Ebenso w\u00e4re ein Unternehmen oder ein Super PAC, das politische Ausgaben t\u00e4tigt, verpflichtet, nur die Namen der Spender offenzulegen, die mindestens $10.000 geben.<\/p>
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected any arguments that disclosure requirements silence speech, and has long upheld them as constitutional because they serve an important governmental interest of giving voters critical information about those who are trying to influence our elections. As Justice Kennedy said in Citizens United, disclosure lets \"citizens see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests.\"<\/p>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\n