Forwarded from:
Edwin Bender
Executive Director
National Institute on Money in State Politics

In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent "Citizens United" ruling, justices overwhelmingly endorsed the value of transparency in political spending, writing, "The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

While we agree wholeheartedly, where disclosure is concerned, we at the
National Institute on Money in State Politics have found that the devil is in the details.

In 2007, Institute staff conducted a review of disclosure requirements for
independent expenditures in all 50 states, and found:

continued...

" ... that 39 states have enacted statutory reporting requirements for state- level IEs, but only five of those states make such information available in comprehensive and relevant formats to the public, news media, academic researchers and other interested parties. While most states have enacted IE disclosure statutes, holes in the laws ‹ combined with an apparent failure of state campaign-finance disclosure agencies to administer effectively those laws ‹ results in the poor public disclosure of independent expenditures. The result is that millions of dollars spent by special interests each year to influence state elections go essentially unreported to the public. IEs form the single-largest loophole in the laws and administrative procedures implementing transparency in state electoral politics."

"Indecent Disclosure" is here:
(link...)

"Independent Expenditures 2006" is here:
(link...)

In light of the Court's ruling, we immediately revisited the state
disclosure sites in the 24 states that ban corporate spending on IEs. While some have improved reporting of IEs, most still offer only partial documentation of the expenditures and many don't even require disclosure of a target, whether pro or con. Accessing the information at all remains a problem in most.

We are now assessing the availability of IEs in the remaining states and will update "Indecent Disclosure" by mid-February, and post notice with the Citizens for Open Government Google Group.

Creating comprehensive baseline data of IEs in the states for the 2010
election is a priority for the Institute, as it will inform the metrics of what many believe will be a seismic shift in political spending in the states.

Parallel struggles over IE disclosure need to be waged in the 11 states that have no disclosure requirement for this type of spending, and lower down the political ladder to county and city levels, as they may be the most vulnerable.

Edwin Bender
Executive Director
National Institute on Money in State Politics
xxxxxxx
(link...)
Twitter: @EHBender