Alors que les s\u00e9nateurs se pr\u00e9parent au d\u00e9bat, contexte et perspectives de Common Cause<\/p>
\u00c0 : journalistes et journalistes d\u2019opinion :<\/p>
Vous trouverez ci-dessous, pour votre commodit\u00e9, une note sur le DISCLOSE Act, qui doit \u00eatre d\u00e9battu au d\u00e9but de la semaine prochaine au S\u00e9nat am\u00e9ricain. <\/p>
Les leaders du S\u00e9nat ont r\u00e9serv\u00e9 lundi et peut-\u00eatre mardi 16 et 17 juillet pour d\u00e9battre d'une nouvelle version simplifi\u00e9e de la loi DISCLOSE (S. 3369). Pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par le s\u00e9nateur Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) et coparrain\u00e9e par 27 autres s\u00e9nateurs, la loi imposerait de nouvelles exigences, indispensables, pour la publication publique d'informations sur les d\u00e9penses politiques des entreprises et des syndicats lors des \u00e9lections f\u00e9d\u00e9rales. Les normes de divulgation am\u00e9lior\u00e9es combleraient les lacunes de la loi actuelle qui ont permis aux soi-disant Super PAC de cacher au public les v\u00e9ritables sources de leurs revenus. Ce m\u00e9morandum vise \u00e0 exposer la raison d'\u00eatre et les dispositions fondamentales de la l\u00e9gislation ainsi que son importance pour notre syst\u00e8me politique.<\/p>
ARRI\u00c8RE-PLAN<\/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>
POINTS FORTS DE L'ARTICLE 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>
Le projet de loi n\u2019entrera pas en vigueur avant le 1er janvier 2013.<\/p>
CHANGEMENTS PAR RAPPORT \u00c0 LA L\u00c9GISLATION 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>
AVANTAGES ET INCONV\u00c9NIENTS<\/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>
Le chef de file r\u00e9publicain du S\u00e9nat, Mitch McConnell, et la Chambre de commerce des \u00c9tats-Unis sont devenus les plus fervents opposants \u00e0 la divulgation. Tous deux soutiennent que la loi DISCLOSE imposerait aux entreprises des contraintes qui ne s\u2019appliquent pas aux syndicats et que son v\u00e9ritable objectif est d\u2019exclure les entreprises de l\u2019ar\u00e8ne politique. Ils soutiennent que plut\u00f4t que de risquer des boycotts de la part des consommateurs qui d\u00e9sapprouvent leurs d\u00e9penses politiques ou des repr\u00e9sailles de la part des \u00e9lus vis\u00e9s par cette loi, les entreprises choisiront de fermer leur ch\u00e9quier et de garder le silence. <\/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>
La loi DISCLOSE traite les d\u00e9penses politiques des entreprises et des syndicats de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re. Si un syndicat qui effectue des d\u00e9penses politiques demande \u00e0 un membre des cotisations sup\u00e9rieures \u00e0 10 000 TP4T ou accepte des dons d'un montant total sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 10 000 TP4T de la part de ce membre, la divulgation serait obligatoire. De m\u00eame, une entreprise ou un Super PAC qui effectue des d\u00e9penses politiques serait oblig\u00e9 de divulguer uniquement les noms des donateurs donnant au moins 10 000 TP4T.<\/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