Ethical Officials and Disclosure Rules
The Supreme Court has been nibbling away at campaign finance laws for
years now, but the one thing all but one of the justices agree on is
that requiring the disclosure of contributions does not infringe on
first amendment speech rights.<br>
<br>
Then why, as stated <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR20100…; target="”_blank”">in the Washington <i>Post</i> yesterday</a>, have organizations sponsoring issue ads failed to list the sources of
their funding 85% of the time this year, when in 2004 they only failed to do this 29% of the time?<br>
<br>
If you ask the lawyers involved, it's all about interpreting a 2007
regulation that only the donations made "for the purpose of furthering
electioneering communications" need be disclosed.<br>
<br>
Federal Election Commission member Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, said,
"This is an unprecedented narrow reading of the regulation. It's
certainly not what I intended when I voted for that regulation."<br>
<br>
According to the <i>Post</i> article, "the Republican commissioners said they
interpreted the regulations to mean that a donation only needed to be
reported if it was for the specific advertisement included on the
disclosure form. That means that even if [a donor] had given money to
run advertisements generally, his name wouldn't be required to be
disclosed unless he directed his money toward specific ads."<br>
<br>
In other
words, when they looked at the regulation, they saw a big loophole that
would gut the regulation and the spirit of the law, and they chose not
to put the loophole into writing, because it would be extremely
embarrassing.<br>
<br>
When a complaint was filed on this issue, the three Republican
commissioners (the six-member board is evenly divided) voted for
dismissal, and four votes are needed to go ahead with a
complaint. One of the Republican commissioners, who admitted he
wasn't sure how to read the requirement, said, "The enforcement
process is not the place to determine what the rule means." But he
doesn't appear to be seeking to determine it in the proper place, by
spelling it out in the regulation.<br>
<br>
What all these attorneys are failing to say is that ethics laws are
minimum requirements. If it is not absolutely clear that an
organization disclose its donors in a particular situation, that does
not mean that the organization should not disclose its donors. An
ethical organization will always put transparency before a doubtful
interpretation of an ethics law. An ethical organization will always do
what's right, not only what is absolutely and clearly required.<br>
<br>
An unethical organization, and the elected officials it supports, hide
behind doubtful interpretations of ethics laws, and refuse to take
responsibility for the freedoms given to them by the constitution,
while crowing about their constitutional rights. An ethical official
can insist that any organization that supports his or her campaign make
full disclosure of its donors, which is clearly what the spirit of the
law requires.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---