Finally, Republican Proffered Campaign Reform. Will McConnell Listen?

Excerpts from a New York Times editorial:

Until now, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has not seen a single member of his caucus dare to buck his fierce opposition to a law requiring fuller disclosure of campaign contributions.  But last month, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska broke through the partisan wall to propose a badly needed mandate for transparency by the growing army of unrestricted, unidentified donors who underwrite attack ads and other stealth tactics that have so disfigured American politics...

...The measure would also require "joint regulations and guidance" from the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission to close the legal loopholes that enable dark-money campaign operations.  This is a needed prod, since the commission is stultified by the inaction of its Republican members and the I.R.S. is too slow to challenge political front groups.  A prime example is the $70 million spent by Karl Rove's transparently political Crossroads GPS organization, which ludicrously claimed tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code as a "social welfare" activity.

Ms. Murkowski's move should be welcomed...because last year's "unprecedented secret spending" can only grow worse in future elections.


what eye thynk:   On a national level, this is sorely needed campaign reform.  On a personal level, it would be another smack-down for Karl Rove and I can't think of anyone who is more deserving of a good top to bottom smacking than K.R.

The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision changed the character of our elections in a fundamental way.  Money, and those with it, were gifted with a louder and more prominent voice than the rest of us under the Court's hypothesis that "corporations are people too".  Last year, fearing a return to the corruption that stained Montana's elections in the early 1900s copper robber baron era, the State of Montana asked the Supreme Court to revisit their 2010 ruling.  The Court declined.  In his dissenting statement, Justice Stephen Breyer said campaign spending since 2010 "casts grave doubt on the court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so".  Sadly, our November elections proved Justice Breyer to be right.

In the face of the Supreme Court's willful ignorance of the harm Citizens United is causing, the real question now is whether the Republican party is willing to give up its dirty, behind the scenes, anything-for-a-win tactics for the kind of fairness proposed by Ms. Murkowski.  Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon.