Opaque is the new Transparent

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil: by Philip Absolon. Copyright © Philip Absolon, stuckism.com. Released under GFDL.Yesterday, Democrats in the Senate were unable to get the 60 votes they needed to break the Republican filibuster of the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections" or DISCLOSE Act. While it may have a ridiculous name, it's failure once again shows us that, in Washington, nothing speaks louder than money.

The DISCLOSE Act is summarized by OpenCongress thusly:

This is the Democrats' response to the Supreme Courts' recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

Thusly, in failing to break the latest GOP filibuster, there will be no requirements on corporate and/or PAC groups for the upcoming mid-term elections. So, for at least one more election, the moneyed interests in the US will have free reign to spend as much as they want to distort, obfuscate and otherwise attempt to steer the elections in their favor.

The GOP is claiming this as a victory for free speech, much in the way that they hailed the aformentioned Citizens United vs. FEC, casting a partisan pallor on a bill that would have done little more than prevent Corporate backers from making claims without putting their name on them. While I have a problem with exempting anyone from this law (non-profit organizations must remain politically neutral to retain their 501(c)3 status anyways), claiming this as a victory for the people is just, well, a lie.

How exactly is protecting the ability for corporate interests to anonymously distort the truth and support candidates that have the best interests of their donors (as opposed to their constituents) at heart a victory for anyone other than corporations? Mitch McConnell said "this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of the November election," funny how he makes no mention of the Republican incumbents that will benefit from it's protection as well, why do you think that is? 

I guess this all gets back to one question, should corporations have all the same rights bestowed upon an individual citizen if that same corporation cannot be held directly responsible for it's actions? This isn't about protecting free speech, it's about shielding corporate donors from libel and slander suits when their PAC's and 629's create false, misleading and slanderous/libelous campaign materials.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I am not now, nor will I ever be, in favor of protecting the "rights" of corporations over the rights of individuals and it is appalling to me that anyone honestly believes that the rights of business can be preserved without direct detriment to individual liberty.

What I think the failure of this bill proves is that our "representatives" in Washington really stand for the almighty dollar, and while this may not come as a surprise to most of us, I think the brazenness of this act to put the interests of their corporate benefactors above the interests of those they claim to represent lays any debate over their loyalty to rest.