No cash, no limits, full disclosure

Much is being made ado about the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court’s ruling struck down much of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 a.k.a. BCRA.

BCRA prohibited corporations, unions and non profits from paying for campaign ads or literature within 60 days of a federal election meant to advocate or be against a candidate. In the past two election cycles, groups like ACORN and Move On have found clever ways to get around the law.

Indeed, it was a movie about Hillary Clinton that was denied to be aired by the Federal Election Commission that caused Citizens United to sue.

The court found that the First Amendment right to free speech is paramount. Writing for a 5-4 split court, Justice Kennedy opined, that the BCRA when it came to free speech, was “an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions.” Kennedy went on to list various groups on both sides of the political issues of the day that were harmed by such.

Kennedy’s words commit the Supreme Court to free speech when it comes to money spent in the political arena. VUI will not bore you with a detailed treatise of the effects of the decision, but it appears that the court might be open to accepting a challenge against all campaign donation limits at some point, if the case is presented correctly.

Frankly, such a stance is welcomed by VUI. For far too many years, politicians have created complicated campaign finance laws with little enforcement teeth to obfuscate who is giving what amount to whom, all in the name of “reform.”

While we know it will not happen anytime soon, VUI contends for no limits on contributions, no undocumented cash donations, and full disclosure of every contributor at all levels. If an individual or entity wants to give a million dollars to a candidate, party or political group, fine, as long as such a donation is fully disclosed. For those who argue that is against free speech, keep in mind that there is no anonymity at a town hall meeting or during the public comments session of a public body. Further, while the people do not have the right to limit the amount money that an individual or group can donate to candidate, the people do have a right to know who is financing a candidate who seeks to lead them. If one truly believes in freedom, one has to believe that the people, when given the information, can judge for themselves who has their interests at heart.

That said, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is an immediate game changer. It will change how Congressional campaigns are dealt with in 2010. Democrats are especially ticked about it, despite the fact that labor unions are given a free hand again. The reason for that is Democrats in 2006 and 2008 learned how to game the campaign finance structure that was in place much better than their Republican counterparts. Now, their gamesmanship will not matter. That is why all sorts of hyperbole can be expected from Democrats in regard to the decision. It is also why Republicans will cheer it.

As for VUI, we see the decision in Citizens United as a step toward freedom and simplicity in campaign finance law that goes another step towards rewarding the open over the clever. Big money will always influence elections. We have a choice, let them openly do it so it can be seen, and the people can judge such, or keep the complicated so called "reforms" that make the big money picture murky.