Because we’re more active in this arena, the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations and unions to spend freely on campaign commercials (through their general treasury, not a PAC) was interesting to us. Republicans applauded the decision as a victory for free speech while Democrats vowed to come up with a legislative “fix” that would restrain the voices of corporate America.
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) was passed last week.
Interestingly enough, the act couldn’t pass without carve outs for certain interest groups that didn’t want to be required to tell which candidates they were sponsoring on TV ads. Among the carve outs were the Sierra Club and the Humane Society.
You can read more on The People’s House, a blog maintained by staff of Representative Tim Johnson.
Now I don’t know about you, but both these associations are groups that I’d sort of like to keep tabs on. I mean, if the Humane Society is supporting a candidate from their general treasury, I’d really like to know who the candidate is AND I’d really like to let my friends and neighbors that blindly contribute to the sick pets on the TV that they are really contributing to elected officials that will vote to end animal agriculture in our country.
And then there’s the other side of the coin … what’s good for one should be good for all, right? What are your thoughts?
Lindsay Mitchell ICGA/ICMB Project Coordinator
No comments:
Post a Comment