A Blockbuster Case Yields an Unexpected Result (Citizens United)

[Derechos]

WASHINGTON — People who hate Citizens United, last year’s blockbuster campaign finance decision by the Supreme Court, tend to blame it for allowing secret money from corporations and unions to flood the political landscape. But the critique is wrong on at least one point — the bit about secrecy.

An often overlooked part of the Citizens United decision actually upheld disclosure requirements, saying that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

Lower courts have embraced the ruling, with at least nine of them relying on Citizens United to reject challenges to disclosure laws, often in cases involving political spending related to social issues. In particular, courts have rejected attempts by groups opposed to same-sex marriage to keep their supporters and spending secret.

Put another way, you can make the argument that Citizens United has been good for gay rights. “Even Justice Scalia supports donor disclosure,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html?hp

[DCKit]

1. “Even Justice Scalia supports donor disclosure,”

I'll bet Judge Thomas is on the fence over this one, though. He's got cockroach DNA.

[Bandit]

2. I do not believe that is correct

The new super pacs that were enabled by "citizen's united" do not have to say where their money comes from nor does the Chamber of Commerce and numerous other new entities that were formed directly after that ruling...

[Derechos]

3. The article does not argue that Citizens United required

all money to be disclosed, but instead refers to the constitutionality of the disclosure laws already on the books. See the following quote:

"None of this means that existing disclosure laws are necessarily adequate. But if they are not, the fault lies with Congress and state legislatures, not the Supreme Court. You can’t blame Citizens United for everything.

It is probably true that the more important issue is not which laws have been upheld, but rather which bills were never passed. But it is also true that the Supreme Court is likely to sustain aggressive disclosure laws if they are enacted."


Thus what I believe you are referring to is a lack of legislation, not the constitutionality of current disclosure laws as supported by Citizens United.