The 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision was hailed as a landmark for free speech in America. The court reasoned that as long as one had the means to pay for the promotion of his or her ideas, those ideas could not be stifled under the United States Constitution. To quote the decision, "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today." Thus, it can be fair to reason that the Supreme Court justified its position through the greater degree of "disclosure" they felt would take place following their consequential ruling. However, almost six years after the controversial decision, there does not seem to be an "effective disclosure" mechanism in place, and money has only become harder to trace in American political campaigns. The role of "dark money" or campaign donations that are nearly impossible to trace, has become larger in state and federal elections since the decision, and has caused alarm for those who believe the campaign finance system is in dire need of reform.
Now, it appears, any avenue of disclosure that a campaign could have taken before 2010 has been severely crippled and reduced to its most narrow passage. This week, in a new budget bill, Republicans have inserted a provision disbarring the Internal Revenue Service from attempting to curb the abuse of the campaign finance law. The IRS says many "political machines" have filed for tax exemption under the decision, presenting themselves as "social welfare" organizations, according to the New York Times.
Further, the Republicans barred the Securities and Exchange Commission from enacting rules that would force corporations to disclose their campaign expenditures. According to the decision, this would create an atmosphere in which, "shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests." However, campaign funds are harder to trace than ever, and the influence of "big money" or "dark money" on the 2016 presidential campaign is incalculable. The legacy of such money in political campaigns cannot be overstated, and it is harder than ever to trace the roots of such funds.Thus, it is fair to ask, did "Citizens United" really ensure a greater degree of "disclosure?"
