This is a great day for Californians. The Commission has adopted what is likely the first statewide rule of its type in the nation. By forcing the disclosure of those who truly attempt to influence the outcome of an election, we have put an end to the most egregious of campaign tactics. Now, when groups try to stay in the shadows by sending out carefully crafted campaign messages in the days and months before an election that are nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to sway the electorate, the public will know who is behind them.

Campaign finance has become a contentious issue recently, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder], which eased restrictions [JURIST report] on political and campaign spending by corporations and unions based on First Amendment grounds. In the wake of Citizen's United, the Disclose Act [Open Congress materials], which prohibits corporations receiving federal contracts worth more than $7 million from spending money on "electioneering communications" and prohibits foreign-controlled domestic corporations from financing campaigns, was approved by the House of Representatives [JURIST report], but stalled in the Senate [LA Times report] in September. This past March, a three-judge panel of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] that the Republican National Committee (RNC) [committee website] cannot raise "soft money" to use in state elections. "Soft money" refers to contributions beyond the ceilings imposed by campaign finance [JURIST news archive] laws.

Wilders' trial was suspended [JURIST report] earlier this month after a lawyer representing him accused one of the judges of bias. Days prior, Wilders announced [JURIST report] that the Dutch government will attempt to ban the burqa [JURIST news archive] and other full Islamic veils to secure the support of Wilders' Freedom Party [party website, in Dutch] in forming a coalition government. An Amsterdam trial court ruled in February that it had jurisdiction to try Wilders for anti-Islamic statements, rejecting [JURIST report] Wilders' claim that, as a member of parliament, he should be tried by the Supreme Court. That court found that his alleged crime was committed outside his capacity as an MP. Last year, the OM announced that they would prosecute Wilders following a January 2009 court order [press releases, in Dutch] by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals. Much of the controversy stems from Wilders' 15-minute film, Fitna, which shows images of the Quran alongside images of violence and says democratic values are threatened by the increasing number of Muslins in Europe.

The ICC, while praised by many observers, is not without controversy. Earlier this month, the court announced that it would continue the proceedings [JURIST report] against Democratic Republic of Congo militia leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo [JURIST news archive]. The court had previously ordered a stay in the proceedings as well as Lubanga's release [JURIST reports]. Last month, a Kenyan businessman challenged the constitutionality [JURIST report] of the ICC's investigation into the violence following the 2007 Kenyan presidential election [JURIST news archive], arguing that it is illegal under the country's new constitution [JURIST report], adopted in August. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] opened the inaugural Review Conference of the Rome Statute [materials] in June by hailing the dawn of an "age of accountability," though attendees were unable to reach a consensus on the definition of a crime of aggression [JURIST reports].