GOP Senate leaders would have served the country better by taking up the Democratic leadership's offer to debate provisions of the Disclose Act and pass a good bill as soon as possible -- yes, in time for the general election.
The reason is simple. A Supreme Court decision in January found that corporations, unions and other groups have the same electoral free speech rights as individuals. That decision leaves intact limits on direct donations to candidates but leaves those groups free to spend as much as they want on campaigning to support or oppose candidates on their own.
Given their money, the law gives the free speech practiced by such groups a much longer and wider reach -- and greater volume -- than the free speech all but a few individuals can afford.
Like freedom, campaign free speech isn't free, and those with the deepest pockets are free to dominate campaigns.
Disclosure doesn't change the law. But disclosure requires the most powerful corporate, union or special interest entities to spell out who they are and how much they're spending.
No hiding behind front groups, no anonymous wealthy manipulators behind the scenes. Representative democracies need to have political players of any stripe be out front and accountable. States have recognized this since the high court's January decision -- Alaska lawmakers passed good, tough disclosure measures for state elections about three months after the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Democrats' bill wasn't perfect -- a provision requiring heads of special interest groups to appear in their ads seems unnecessary to disclosure, for example -- but it needed debate and amending for the sake of an open political process that serves the public interest, not death for the sake of shortsighted partisanship.
BOTTOM LINE: Disclosure is vital for an open political process. No party should stand in opposition.
Important warning about e-mails purporting to be from the adn.com staff.