I have just written this oped for Politico. Here is a snippet:
- The temptation to use secret funds is only likely to increase in 2012, when not only Congress but the presidency is on the line. The astronomical spending of 2008 could well multiply in 2012 — and a huge chunk of that is sure to come from secret contributors. Unless something is done.
There is only a small window of time for Congress to address this — the lame-duck session.
Democrats have tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which could solve most of these problems. Though it passed the House, it was filibustered in the Senate. Entreaties to moderate Republicans Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.) to cross and vote with Democrats were to no avail.
Prospects could be far worse in the next Congress. There will be five fewer Democrats in the Senate, making a filibuster that much harder to break.
More important, there’s no reason to believe that the soon-to-be Republican House would vote for meaningful disclosure provisions. Not only is much of the conservative GOP leadership ideologically opposed to campaign finance regulation on principle; they are not likely to vote to scuttle a system that served them so well this year.
Due to a quirk in the law, however, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) takes his seat now — replacing the appointee Sen. Ronald Burris during this month’s lame-duck session. Kirk has said that he’s a supporter of McCain-Feingold. During his campaign, he actually spoke out in favor of better disclosure laws.
Kirk should take the lead in pushing a disclosure bill through this lame-duck session of Congress. He should also urge the remaining Republican moderates to cross party lines with him.
These GOP moderate senators should not be asked to sign on to the DISCLOSE Act. That measure, in addition to disclosure provisions, was larded with other provisions of questionable constitutionality — including new limits on corporate spending by certain corporations, like government contractors.