Senate stalemate indicates larger problems in campaign finance reform Commentary
Senate stalemate indicates larger problems in campaign finance reform
Edited by:

Nick Nyhart [President and CEO, Public Campaign]: “With just four Republican Senators in play on the DISCLOSE Act its failure to reach closure Wednesday was no surprise. The original intent of the legislation was to blunt the impact of the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Unfortunately, it became a political football for Republicans and Democrats alike.

While the transparency and disclosure provisions included in the bill would let the American people know who is trying to buy our elections, Congress should have been bolder. The American electorate is not angry about a few bad apples–they want to throw out the whole moldy barrel.

Congress should pass some form of the DISCLOSE Act, but it should also move forward with more comprehensive legislation too–the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826, S. 752). This bipartisan legislation would allow candidates to run competitive campaigns for office on a blend of Fair Elections funds and small donations. With Fair Elections, candidates would be accountable to their voters, instead of the big money donors funding their campaigns.

The legislation has the broad, bipartisan, and cross-caucus support of 157 U.S. House members and 23 U.S. Senators. Fearing the new forms of special interest political retaliation allowed under Citizens United, candidates for Congress will now have to spend even more time raising big donations and less time working for working Americans.

It’s important to know what big lobbying interests are funding elections, but wouldn’t it be great if we never had to question the motives of our elected officials to begin with? It’s time to make our government of, by, and for the people by passing the Fair Elections Now Act.”

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.