Doing the minimum on campaign finance reform

At the very least, are we not entitled to know who's buying our government?

There are still people searching for ways to ban unlimited political donations to supposedly independent groups, but that's a non-starter. The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that outright bans violate the First Amendment.

Key question: Can the government ban a book advocating the defeat of a candidate published less than 90 days before an election? The answer cannot be yes, because by definition the government should not be able to ban a book at any time.

So, for the moment, forget contribution bans or limits. Let's focus on disclosure.

That was the aim of a measure defeated in the Senate this week, a measure that never got an up-or-down vote. Although 53 senators wanted that vote, 45 said no, including our very own appointed U.S. Sen. Dean Heller.

It wasn't a perfect bill, but it would have required any group that spent more than $10,000 to influence an election to disclose its contributions and expenditures. That would go for the so-called super-PACs, which must make disclosures now, as well as for non-profit "public benefit corporations" organized under section 501(c)(4) of the revenue code, which are currently allowed to raise money in secret.

Remarkably, Republicans - some of whom used to favor greater disclosure of political donors - have generally opposed disclosure laws passed in 2010 and this year. Not a single Republican voted to hold a debate in the Senate this week.

It should not be this way. No less a noted conservative than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday repeated his support for campaign disclosure laws. On a tour promoting his new book, "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," Scalia told CNN's Piers Morgan that Thomas Jefferson would have supported unlimited campaign spending, with one caveat:

"Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. That's what the First Amendment is all about. ... So long as the people know where the speech is coming from."

Later, Scalia added: "You are entitled to know where the speech is coming from - you know, information as to who contributed what."

If you're keeping track at home, that's at least five votes to uphold a disclosure law, on the assumption that if the court's four liberal members were willing to ban unlimited corporate donations outright, they'd certainly be in favor of the far less burdensome requirement of disclosure.

But it's even better than that: Eight of the court's nine justices said in the Citizens United decision that disclosure requirements are appropriate. (Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter.) And the majority is right, especially if a big donor is in a position to benefit from his donation.

Here in Las Vegas, for example, Las Vegas Sands faces an investigation for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Company CEO Sheldon Adelson is putting big money behind Republican Mitt Romney, who may be in a position to appoint the next attorney general, who will oversee any federal probe of Las Vegas Sands. That's something people ought to know.

Ditto for oil billionaires seeking to elect a president who could allow more drilling for oil, or liberal activists seeking changes in social policy, or unions looking to overturn right-to-work laws or chambers of commerce looking to advance business interests.

If we've decided, as a country, to allow those individuals, groups and organizations to spend unlimited money influencing our democracy, the least we can do is require them to tell us who's doing it. In fact, it's the very least we can do.

Steve Sebelius is author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.