The surprising thing about the recent revealing of the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE Act) is how very unsurprising it is. From the acronym that suggests one thing (while the legislation, in fact, does just the opposite) and the timing in preparation for November elections, to the aggressive push to have it in place as quickly as possible, this latest piece of legislation is exactly in line with everything else this administration has done to date. In fact, this newest legislation is so mundane in the context of what this administration has attempted to do from the beginning that it’s incredibly frustrating to even talk about because the specter of redundancy, a nasty bug most writers and political analysts fear might infect their work, is an ever present reality. And that is perhaps what makes this legislation most frightening of all.
On the surface, the legislation is an attempt to force disclosure of campaign finance contributions under the guise of attempting to clean up the process by making sure that large donors do not attempt to violate the purity of the political process by expecting some return on their campaign investment. The new legislation does this by enforcing a limit on how much an organization can contribute without having to disclose their affiliation and by banning political advocacy contributions from corporations that have 20 percent or more foreign ownership.
Except that it doesn’t. At least not in an equitable way. The myriad rules and regulations included in the legislation do things like restrict any corporation with a government contract of $50,000 or more from making contributions in the form of election advocacy or independent gifts to campaigns. This number is so low that it would include a large number of donors and advocacy groups under the restriction umbrella. Groups that would not be included however are unions. To be clear: the new legislation does not restrict unions in the same way as corporations.
DISCLOSE also requires that non-profit groups provide member names to government agencies (as opposed to simply disclosing sponsorship as in the past) and increases the number of disclaimers required in campaign advocacy ads.
For the most part, it appears that what DISCLOSE does undeniably well is stack the deck in favor of unions and, to be blunt, direct contributors to Democratic candidates. Again not surprisingly, there’s even vague language to suggest that political web sites and bloggers will also be regulated and restricted under this legislation as disseminators of political ideology and, therefore, influential in the political process. In fact, the rules in the new legislation are so onerous, confusing, broad and redundant that trying to distill them without a law degree is a study in patience. And this may be the point.
The thrust of most of the legislation the current administration has introduced has changed in specifics only. In essentials, they are all very much the same. They obfuscate, confuse and befuddle the average voter or, in this case, real or ostensible campaign contributor, to the degree that no one knows if they are in violation of the law at any given time. All of this is done at the same time that large union donors in some kind of hazy, ongoing political game of payback and back scratching, are allowed to continue their own direct financing of campaigns.
These tactics become increasingly recognizable and it’s easy to begin just accepting them as status quo. But it would be a grave mistake to allow that kind of malaise to take hold. One could argue that the small consistent beat of repeated tactics is much more effective at wearing down resolve than the extreme, one-time hit. It would be wise to stay alert – and continue to battle – the tiny earthquakes that are beginning to look all too familiar.
Sarah Lee is an Atlanta native and freelance writer living and working in Washington, D.C.