Mientras los senadores se preparan para el debate, antecedentes y perspectivas de Common Cause<\/p>
Para: periodistas y escritores de opini\u00f3n:<\/p>
A continuaci\u00f3n, para su conveniencia, encontrar\u00e1 una nota sobre la Ley DISCLOSE, cuyo debate est\u00e1 previsto para principios de la pr\u00f3xima semana en el Senado de Estados Unidos. <\/p>
Los l\u00edderes del Senado han reservado el lunes y posiblemente el martes 16 y 17 de julio para debatir una nueva versi\u00f3n simplificada de la Ley DISCLOSE (S. 3369). Presentada por el senador Sheldon Whitehouse (dem\u00f3crata por Rhode Island) y copatrocinada por otros 27 senadores, la ley impondr\u00eda nuevos requisitos, muy necesarios, para la divulgaci\u00f3n p\u00fablica de informaci\u00f3n sobre el gasto pol\u00edtico de las corporaciones y los sindicatos en las elecciones federales. Las normas de divulgaci\u00f3n mejoradas cerrar\u00edan lagunas en la ley actual que han permitido a los llamados Super PAC ocultar las verdaderas fuentes de sus ingresos de la vista del p\u00fablico. Este memorando tiene como objetivo esbozar la justificaci\u00f3n y las disposiciones b\u00e1sicas de la legislaci\u00f3n y su importancia para nuestro sistema pol\u00edtico.<\/p>
FONDO<\/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>
ASPECTOS DESTACADOS DE LA 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>
El proyecto de ley no entrar\u00eda en vigor hasta el 1 de enero de 2013.<\/p>
CAMBIOS CON RESPECTO A LA LEGISLACI\u00d3N DE 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>
EL PRO Y EL 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>
El l\u00edder republicano del Senado, Mitch McConnell, y la C\u00e1mara de Comercio de Estados Unidos han surgido como los principales opositores a la transparencia. Ambos sostienen que la Ley DISCLOSE impondr\u00eda a las corporaciones cargas que no se aplican a los sindicatos y que su verdadero prop\u00f3sito es expulsarlas de la arena pol\u00edtica; sostienen que, en lugar de arriesgarse a ser boicoteadas por los consumidores que no est\u00e1n de acuerdo con su gasto pol\u00edtico o a sufrir represalias por parte de los funcionarios electos a los que se dirige la ley, las corporaciones optar\u00e1n por cerrar sus chequeras y permanecer en silencio. <\/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>
AN\u00c1LISIS<\/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>
La Ley DISCLOSE trata de manera id\u00e9ntica los gastos pol\u00edticos corporativos y sindicales. Si un sindicato que realiza gastos pol\u00edticos cobra a sus miembros cuotas superiores a 10.000 T\/T o acepta donaciones por un total superior a 10.000 T\/T de dicho miembro, se exigir\u00e1 la divulgaci\u00f3n de la informaci\u00f3n. De manera similar, una corporaci\u00f3n o un Super PAC que realice gastos pol\u00edticos estar\u00eda obligado a divulgar \u00fanicamente los nombres de los donantes que aporten al menos 10.000 T\/T.<\/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