Litigation

Calls Mount in Michigan for More Campaign Disclosure

By Peter Hardin

A campaign watchdog and a newspaper editorial board delivered a one-two punch to Michigan legislators this week in appealing for robust disclosure of corporate political spending.

Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network branded existing campaign disclosure in Michigan as “pathetic” in  a commentary in the Detroit Free Press, and a Grand Rapids Press editorial labeled state campaign finance laws “woefully inadequate in an age of unlimited corporate and union spending.”

Robinson called for changing weak campaign finance regulations that allowed more than $45 million worth of television campaign advertisements to go unreported since 2000. He cited the record in a judicial campaign as one example:

“Most of the money in the 2008 Michigan Supreme Court campaign was off the books. In the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, nearly $20 million was off the books. If you remember any TV ad from one of those campaigns, it is very likely that it wasn’t financially disclosed.

“Why does this matter? Because campaign spending in a judicial election may compromise the impartiality of a judge. Because interest groups that pay for election campaigns expect to have their policy agenda addressed.”

He concluded by appealing to both legislators and citizens, saying a push for transparency and accountability “may be democracy’s last stand against the invisible hands that pull the strings that make politics inexplicably polarized and dysfunctional.” His group, MCFN, is a partner of Justice at Stake.

Both commentaries referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision and to a recent declaratory ruling by Michigan’s secretary of state about independent political expenditures (see Gavel Grab). The editorial gave a stern warning:

“The high court ruling blows up the campaign finance regulatory laws at the national and state level. Without clear limits on how much can be spent supporting or opposing candidates, the emphasis in Congress and in the state Legislature ought to be on disclosure.”

In Congress, meanwhile, a Washington Post article reported there are “serious obstacles in the House” to legislation requiring corporations to identify themselves in political ads they pay for, and to disclose their expenditures to shareholders and the public. (Learn more about the legislation from Gavel Grab.)

The quarterly publication The American Interest publishes in its July/August issues three articles about Citizens United, which are available here by clicking on the author’s names: “What the Court Did–and Why,” by Richard L. Hasen; “How We Got Here,” by Mark Schmitt; and “Expand Democracy,” by Michael J. Malbin.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 10, 2010 (boomark / email).