DISCLOSE Now!

I'm going to borrow CAclean.org's banner for a moment because they are doing something very important right now: pushing for passage of the California DISCLOSE Act ("DISCLOSE" stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections").

There is a meeting about the DISCLOSE Act anyone in the San Francisco area can attend:

Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, and Ruby Reid, the Northern California Field Manager, will join local Clean Money leaders to help kick off the San Francisco campaign for the CA DISCLOSE Act.

WHAT: CA DISCLOSE Act San Francisco Kickoff

WHEN: Saturday, April 23rd, from 1-3pm

WHERE: Potrero Branch Library, 1616 20th St.

between Connecticut & Arkansas. Muni #10

RSVP or Question: SF-Info@CAclean.org

If you can't attend the meeting, go to the CAclean website linked above, and email, Twitter, and/or Facebook the page to your friends.

What does the DISCLOSE Act do?

As proposed, the California DISCLOSE Act would:

Replace current deceptive "Paid for by" disclosures with real disclosure:

· "Stand By Your Ad": Require top funder of television and radio ads (e.g. the CEO of an organization or a millionaire) to appear and say that they approve of the message. E.g. Instead of saying "Paid for by Yes on 23, California Jobs Initiative" in fine print, Yes on 23 ads would have said:"I am Bill Klesse, the CEO of Valero Energy Corporation, located in Texas. Valero Energy helped pay for this message and approves it."

· Disclose other major funders in a clear and obvious fashion

2) Include serious new disclosure requirements for slate mailers

· E.g. Require slates that appear to represent parties to say, e.g.:

"This is a commercial mailer. This is not the official slate of a Democratic Party Organization"

In other words, corporations or groups of corporations, or very wealthy individuals, couldn't pay for political advertising while hiding behind bland- or deceptive-sounding attributions like "Paid for by Yes on 23" or "Paid for by Californians for Success". Instead, they would have to name themselves for everyone to see.

This is particularly important in a post-Citizens United world in which the Supreme Court thinks that (1) money equals free speech, and (2) corporations can spend as much as they would like, anonymously, on political campaigns. If money equals free speech, and speech equates to political power, then corporations have far, far more free speech and political power now than you could ever hope to have.

The only potential counterweight to corporations' political power in this environment is information - information available to the voters that the corporations don't want known. And the most valuable political information voters need is who, exactly, is paying for the political ads--the points of view--they see on the TV and hear on the radio in saturation quantity during election seasons. That kind of information makes it much easier for a voter to judge whether or not corporate-sponsored political advertising is worthy of any attention.