Citizens United may have been bad for keeping the cost of elections down, but it may prove to be a boon for campaign transparency.

 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in January 2010, deep-pocketed interests have been free to spend more money than ever on elections. But a second part of the decision, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, ruled that corporations, unions and others wishing to do so will risk voters finding out who is contributing what and to whom…if lower courts continue to use the ruling to fight off challenges to campaign disclosure laws.

 

The New York Times reports that in at least nine cases since Citizens United was issued, courts have upheld the primacy of informing the public about the sources of funding for political races.

 

“In particular, courts have rejected efforts by groups opposed to same-sex marriage to keep their supporters and spending secret,” wrote Adam Liptak in The New York Times. “Put another way, you can make the argument that Citizens United has been good for gay rights.”

 

Election law professor Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, told the newspaper that disclosure provides voters with useful information. “If all I tell you about a candidate is that he is backed by the N.R.A. or Planned Parenthood, that is all many voters need to know,” he said. “The disclosure serves a shortcut function.”

-Noel Brinkerhoff

 

A Blockbuster Case Yields an Unexpected Result (by Adam Liptak, New York Times)

Lower Courts Clash with Supreme Court over Gun Rights Rulings (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)