The Supreme Court recently ruled that aggregate contribution limits to political candidates are unconstitutional. Although we are disappointed by this outcome, we will continue to push for real-time transparency of hard money contributions.

Join us in our call for real-time                     disclosure

Join Us

Citizens Not Increasing Scrutiny

by

The Washington Independent has a great write-up of political spending after the Citizens decision, with one exception: the headline.

Citizens United Frees Corporations to Spend on Elections, But Increases Scrutiny

The Citizens decision doesn't increase scrutiny on spending in elections. In fact, it makes it much harder to track. That's why the DISCLOSE Act is so important, despite its significant flaws. Without online, real time disclosure of political spending, our elections are vulnerable to the distorting influence of moneyed interests operating completely out of public view.

Despite the headline, the story notes the importance of the DISCLOSE Act, and highlights that the blowback against Target was only possible because of state laws:

The only reason Target’s contribution to MN Forward became public knowledge was because it affected a state rather than national candidate, and the state of Minnesota has more stringent disclosure laws for its elections than the federal government.