By Jason Gueltzow-R, Yucca Valley
In a previous article about corporations are people, spending money is free speech and corporations spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections is constitutionally protected – I was delighted to learn California had introduced a bill to ensure transparency in campaign financing.
Assembly Bill 1148, the California Disclosure Act, sought to require the top three funders of political ads in California to disclose their identity so that voters would be informed of who actually finances these measures. No longer would corporate financiers have the luxury of hiding behind deceptive and fictitious “grass-roots” organizations. Through disclosure, voters in California would be back on equal footing in the ballot booth.
The Supreme Court articulated the importance of disclosure in the Citizens United decision. They held that, “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way … transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Despite wide approval, 84 percent in polls across all party lines, on Jan. 31, the California Assembly failed to pass AB 1148. It fell short of the requisite two-thirds majority by just two votes. Sadly, my representative from the 65th Assembly District, Assemblyman Paul Cook-R, was one of the NO votes.
When Congressman Jerry Lewis announced his retirement recently, I was excited to learn that one of our own, Assemblyman Cook, planned to run for his seat. But when running to replace a congressman who is consistently named as “one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress,” Mr. Cook should know his voting record will be scrutinized. The road to Congress is a long one, and for me, Mr. Cook has started it on the wrong foot.
Perhaps the problem with the bill was that it required only the top three to be disclosed. Why not full disclosure? Why not ask, “why only three?”
Is it possible that something was attached to the bill that made it unacceptable?
What evidence do you have that corporations, as a group or as individual entities, have control or would want to influence the government such that your life or your interests are harmed?
I keep hearing about a conspiracy of control by corporations but no one seems able to articulate what they do to hurt individuals. I’d would appreciate hearing about your concerns.
It is naive to assume that money does not talk in politics. It is human nature to respond positively to whomever has the most cash. Corporations, with their seemingly unlimited funding, actually deny the people access to their representatives. “I can’t hear you, the other guy is yelling too loud!” No individual is allowed to legally match the contributions of corporations. No individual can yell as loud as the corporations. America is all about equal access to our representatives. The ruling denies that equality. Remember NAFTA? Tow-thirds of us opposed NAFTA, yet Clinton gave us NAFTA, precisely because the corporations hold more sway n the halls of power.
Yep, you’re right.