Habang Naghahanda ang mga Senador para sa Debate, Background at Mga Insight mula sa Common Cause<\/p>
Para sa: mga mamamahayag at manunulat ng opinyon:<\/p>
Sa ibaba para sa iyong kaginhawahan ay isang memo sa DISCLOSE Act, na nakatakdang debate sa unang bahagi ng susunod na linggo sa US Senate. <\/p>
Inilaan ng mga pinuno ng Senado ang Lunes at posibleng Martes, Hulyo 16 at 17, para sa debate sa bago at pinasimpleng bersyon ng DISCLOSE Act (S. 3369). Ipinakilala ni Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), at co-sponsored ng 27 iba pang mga senador, ang panukalang batas ay magpapataw ng mga bago, lubhang kailangan na mga kinakailangan para sa pampublikong pagpapalabas ng impormasyon tungkol sa pampulitikang paggastos ng mga korporasyon at unyon sa mga pederal na halalan. Ang pinahusay na mga pamantayan sa pagsisiwalat ay magsasara ng mga butas sa kasalukuyang batas na nagpahintulot sa tinatawag na mga Super PAC na protektahan ang mga tunay na pinagmumulan ng kanilang kita mula sa pananaw ng publiko. Ang memorandum na ito ay naglalayong balangkasin ang katwiran at mga pangunahing probisyon ng batas at ang kahalagahan nito sa ating sistemang pampulitika.<\/p>
BACKGROUND<\/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>
MGA HIGHLIGHT NG 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>
Hindi magkakabisa ang panukalang batas hanggang sa Enero 1, 2013.<\/p>
MGA PAGBABAGO MULA SA 2010 LEHISLATION<\/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 AT CON<\/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>
Ang Senate Republican Leader na si Mitch McConnell at ang US Chamber of Commerce ay lumitaw bilang ang pinakakilalang mga kalaban ng pagsisiwalat. Parehong nangangatwiran na ang DISCLOSE Act ay maglalagay ng mga pasanin sa mga korporasyong hindi nalalapat sa mga unyon at ang tunay na layunin nito ay itulak ang mga korporasyon mula sa larangan ng pulitika; iginigiit nila na sa halip na ipagsapalaran ang mga boycott mula sa mga mamimili na hindi sumasang-ayon sa kanilang pampulitikang paggastos o paghihiganti mula sa mga inihalal na opisyal na tinatarget nito, pipiliin ng mga korporasyon na isara ang kanilang mga checkbook at manatiling tahimik. <\/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>
PAGSUSURI<\/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>
Parehong tinatrato ng DISCLOSE Act ang paggastos sa pulitika ng korporasyon at unyon. Kung ang isang unyon na nakikibahagi sa pampulitikang paggastos ay naniningil sa sinumang miyembro na dapat bayaran ng higit sa $10,000 o tumatanggap ng mga donasyon na may kabuuang kabuuang higit sa $10,000 mula sa miyembrong iyon, kakailanganin ang pagsisiwalat. Katulad nito, ang isang korporasyon o Super PAC na nakikibahagi sa pampulitikang paggastos ay mapipilitang ibunyag lamang ang mga pangalan ng mga donor na nagbibigay ng hindi bababa sa $10,000.<\/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