All, Please read this.





(Emphasis added)

"

Supreme Court Left Donor Disclosure Rules Intact

January 25, 2010

Democrats and liberals are still in shock after the Supreme Court last week allowed corporations to start spending money in political campaigns. But the same decision dealt a setback to some conservative activists by upholding laws requiring disclosure of political donors.

Writing for the majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that transparency enables voters to make informed decisions and weigh different speakers and messages.

Silver Lining?

Tara Malloy, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, which defends campaign finance laws, says that this part of the opinion is a silver lining.

"If anything, the court seemed to almost herald disclosure," Malloy says.

Most politicians generally seem to like disclosure. Last week, House Republication leader John Boehner did what GOP leaders in Congress have often done: He quoted long-ago liberal Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

"I have always believed that sunshine was the best disinfectant," Boehner said.

Even the lawyer who filed the lawsuit for the Citizens United group, James Bopp, says he generally agrees — but not entirely.

"There is nothing to disinfect when we're talking about the average citizen or an advocacy group that's simply speaking out about issues that they are concerned about," Bopp says.

Bopp and other conservative activists are challenging disclosure laws in the same way they contest other campaign finance laws. Until last week, they seemed to be making headway.

Bopp won a milestone case in the Supreme Court in 2007. And subsequently, there was a whole rash of challenges filed just before the 2008 elections.

Malloy points to disclosure cases now pending in federal court in North Carolina and in state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. She says the Citizens United decision will help defenders of disclosure requirements.

Why Conservatives Dislike Disclosure

Conservatives make two broad points against disclosure. First, they say that donors have a First Amendment right to both political speech and anonymity, particularly if the money is small or if it doesn't go directly to candidates.

Paul Lehto, a liberal legal scholar in Michigan, disagrees.

"When you enter the public square," he says, "I mean in all different kinds of areas of the law, you waive — to a large if not total extent — any reasonable expectation of privacy."

The second argument against disclosure is more concrete. Some donors say they face retaliation from opponents who track them down through disclosure filings.

Bopp says that nothing in the Citizens United opinion weakens that argument.

"One thing that we are paying attention to that the court said," Bopp says, "is that you need some specific allegations that there's a potential for harassment and intimidation."

More . . .

"

=================

I wish they had moved in favor of privacy for individual donors, especially small donors. It makes no sense to show all donor donations FOR EVER in various web sites.  That itself is enough to dissuade people from donating.

All in all, between that and now Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to donate, the scales have totally tipped in favor of Corporations, Unions and PACs.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 25th of January 2010 07:57:09 PM