Should every Iowa political contribution be disclosed publicly?
Related Stories
An Iowa state senator says he’ll reintroduce legislation this year that would force disclosure for every person, organization and corporation that contributes to political campaigns.
Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, said he’ll push three bills:
- A resolution that the General Assembly supports the repeal of Citizen’s United, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that prohibited limitations on independent expenditures.
- A bill that requires full disclosure in campaigns.
- A measure that sets up a mechanism for public financing of political campaigns.
The Senate passed Danielson’s campaign disclosure bill last year, but it was never picked up in the House.
Danielson was joined by Senate President Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, at a Statehouse rally Wednesday that included members from the League of Women Voters, Iowa Public Interest Research Group and Iowa Move to Amend, which supports a U.S. constitutional amendment to withhold constitutional rights from corporations. Data collected by the groups showed that 96.21 percent of the money spent on Iowa House races came from groups registered outside the state. Those groups spent $8.3 million, and 36.6 percent of those dollars came from undisclosed donors.
What do you think? Should public disclosure be required for all political contributions in Iowa?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Just for the sake of making this manageable, there should be a dollar amount below which full disclosure is not required. I don’t think we need full disclosure of a $25 contribution. However, I would keep the minimum low (e.g. $500).
People associate money with free speech. I believe in free speech but I also believe in accountability. We don’t allow anonymous postings on this board because people need to be accountable for what they say. Likewise, people need to be accountable for what they contribute to a campaign.
Full disclosure and pass the Move to Amend resolution as eleven other states have already done. Corporations are not a person and no where in the Constitution does any word even hint that there is such a thing as a corporation. Where are the strict constructionist on this issue?
Every single dollar. Also every dollar given to/through 527′s, PAC’s, etc.
And, make every contribution subject to sales tax. After all, what we’re really doing through political contributions is trying to buy (or at least rent) a politician.
Yes. From the federal level right down to the local level. For instance it would be nice to know locally how much money was donated to the current Cedar Rapids city council re-election campaigns. I’d like to see how much money CRST has donated to the mayors re-election campaign after the city council gave them a tax break to allow a domatory on their premises. Why is that a problem? Empty hotel rooms =’s no motel/hotel tax revenue. Aren’t we going to be in the hotel business? They are taking money out of the tax stream for the company that the mayor works for!
Absolutely. Our elected officials seem to have forgotten that they’re accountable to us, and they’ve managed to shield themselves from public oversight. We need to get back to the notion that they work for us, not the other way around.
I support Full Disclosure. However, the idea that a US Supreme Court decision can be “repealed” is bizarre. If Sen. Danielson was accurately quoted (granted, never a sure thing with The Gazette) he is about as much as a dunce as is Grifter Bob regarding the functional relationship of the three branches of government to one another.
Jack check out article 5 of the u.s. constitution. We can amend the constitution when the SCOUS makes such a ridicules claim.