Reuters – Senate Republicans block campaign disclosure bill - Senate Republicans blocked a bid by Democrats on Monday to require political fundraising groups to reveal their anonymous contributors who are fueling negative television advertisements ahead of the November election. By a 51-44 party line vote, supporters of the Disclose Act of 2012 fell short of the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican procedural hurdle. But Democrats promised to debate the bill late into the night and seek another vote on Tuesday, hoping to paint Republicans as thwarting transparency. [Reuters,7/16/12]

Bloomberg – Senate Republicans Block Campaign Donor Disclosure Bill - The U.S. Senate didn’t advance legislation that would require nonprofit groups to reveal who donates the millions of dollars they spend on campaign ads. Yesterday’s vote on the Democratic proposal was 51-44, with 60 required to advance it. The measure, opposed by Republicans, is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that removed limits on independent spending by corporations and labor unions. Democrats said they would seek another vote today. Groups that kept their donors secret favored Republicans over Democrats in 2010 by $117 million to $13 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. Such groups included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, and Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. [Bloomberg, 7/17/12]

CBS News – Senate GOP block campaign spending disclosure bill - Senate Republicans blocked Democratic-backed legislation requiring organizations pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign ads to disclose their top donors and the amounts they spend. GOP opposition prevented Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to bring what is known as the Disclose Act to the Senate floor. The vote was 51-44. Democrats revived the act during a presidential election campaign in which political action committees and nonprofit organizations, funded by deep-pocketed and largely anonymous contributors, are dominating the airwaves with largely negative political ads. [CBS News, 7/17/12]

NY Times (Editorial) - The Power of Anonymity - Two years ago, Congress came within a single Republican vote in the Senate of following the Supreme Court’s advice to require broad disclosure of campaign finance donors. The justices wanted voters to be able to decide for themselves “whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The court advised such disclosure in its otherwise disastrous Citizens United decision in 2010, which loosed a new wave of unlimited spending on political campaigns. The decision’s anticorruption prescription has grown even more compelling as hundreds of millions of dollars in disguise have flooded the 2012 campaigns — a great deal of it washed through organizations that are set up for the particular purpose of hiding the names of the writers of enormous checks. [NY Times, 7/17/12]

WSJ – Senate Democrats Plan ‘Midnight Vigil’ on Campaign Finance Bill - The Disclosed Act—which stands for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections—would require groups to file a public report listing all donors that gave the group $10,000 or more.Democrats are frustrated that recent decisions by the Supreme Court, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removed restrictions on political spending and allowed donors to spend large sums supporting or opposing candidates without identifying themselves. More Republican than Democratic donors are availing themselves of this new freedom. Some contributors are openly identifying themselves, such as casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has backed Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, and Leo Linbeck III, a Texas construction magnate whose super PAC is aimed at making primaries more competitive. Others have remained behind-the-scenes, and critics say that lets them unfairly affect elections from the shadows. [WSJ, 7/16/12]

Washington Post (Editorial) – Expose the fat cats - AMERICANS WHO are worried about the corrosive power of big money in politics ought to watch what is about to happen in the Senate. On Monday, a cloture vote is scheduled on legislation that would require the disclosure of donors anonymously pumping tens of millions of dollars into this year’s presidential and congressional campaigns. Not a single Republican in the chamber has expressed support for the bill, known as the Disclose Act, meaning it will probably die for this session. It should be interesting to hear how the Republican senators justify this monumental concealment of campaign cash. [Washington Post,7/16/12]

Daily Beast – GOP Kills DISCLOSE Act and Leaves Voters in the Dark- The DISCLOSE Act was summarily executed via filibuster in the Senate last night. But this is one symbolic vote that mattered, because it offered at least an attempt to address the flow of hidden money into our elections. But wait, you say—the promise of Citizens United was to balance unlimited money with unprecedented transparency. Well, brace yourself, but it hasn’t quite worked out that way. In fact, the trade of cash for transparency has been undercut by a variety of vehicles, especially the use of 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations grafted onto super PACs that allow for anonymous donations and big-ticket expenditures that we won’t see until the election is in the rearview mirror. [Daily Beast,7/17/12]

Huffington Post – DISCLOSE Campaign Spending Act Blocked By Senate Republicans - Senate Republicans blocked a bill Monday evening to increase transparency in campaign spending by independent groups. In a 51-44 vote, the DISCLOSE Act failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican filibuster. The bill would have required disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads — or their functional equivalent — and other election spending. [Huffington Post, 7/17/12]

The Hill – Dems hold ‘midnight vigil’ to protest defeat of DISCLOSE bill - Senate Democrats launched a rare, all-night debate on Monday that was scheduled to last past midnight, to protest Senate Republicans’ opposition to legislation that would require companies, unions and other groups to report their campaign spending. Democrats warned that they would hold a “midnight vigil” if Republicans blocked the vote on their bill, and they began shortly before 7 p.m., just minutes after GOP did in fact unanimously oppose the bill. Democrats were hoping to end debate on the bill, which needed 60 votes, but the vote failed 51-44. Democrats immediately lined up more than a dozen speakers, and planned to debate the bill until 1 a.m., and then take up the issue again Tuesday morning. [The Hill, 7/16/12]

National Journal – Senate GOP Unanimously Votes to Block DISCLOSE Act - In a 51-44 vote Monday night, Senate Republicans unanimously voted to block the Democratically backed DISCLOSE Act, which would have required political organizations to disclose the names of donors who give $10,000 or more. Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Congress doesn’t do something to curb the torrents of money being spent on political campaigns by secret donors,  said today, then “17 angry old white men will wake up” on the morning after Election Day, “and realize they’ve just bought the country.” With that rip-snorting salvo at the wealthy donors who have been giving seven-figure contributions to shadowy political groups and Super PACs, the Senate Democrats opened debate on Monday on the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act – a measure that would require that political organizations disclose all donors who give them more than $10,000. [National Journal, 7/16/12]

Washington Times – Republicans block bill on transparency - Senate Democrats on Monday failed to move forward on legislation that calls for more strict disclosures for political spending, as Republicans easily blocked a mostly symbolic procedural vote on the measure less than a week after Democrats blasted House Republicans for holding a token vote to repeal health care. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who has characterized the so-called Disclose Act as a threat to the First Amendment, led a successful filibuster to defeat the measure during an evening vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, was expected to try again Tuesday. But with the Democratic leader eight votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the measure, the bill is all but dead. [Washington Times, 7/17/12]

BuzzFeed – Senate Dems Plan ‘Midnight Vigil’ For Campaign Finance Bill - Democrats are preparing to put on a two day campaign finance floor show in the Senate, scheduling a handful of votes and a “midnight vigil” for increased disclosure of who, exactly, is donating to the outside groups underwriting both Barack Obama’s and — to a larger degree — Mitt Romney’s campaigns for president. The bill has virtually no chance of passage – a fact of which its sponsors are keenly aware. But Democrats hope to use the legislation to point a finger at Republicans on the new flood of cash.Led by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Chuck Schumer, Democrats this evening will force a the first of two votes on the Disclose Act, legislation designed to force Super PACs to disclose large dollar donors. [BuzzFeed, 7/16/12]

Boston Globe – GOP blocks political-ad disclosure bill - Senate Republicans again foiled Democrats in their efforts to pass a bill expanding disclosures of donors to independent political groups. The latest effort Monday on the Democrats’ measure, dubbed the DISCLOSE Act, fell short of breaking a Republican filibuster. Needing 60 votes, Democrats garnered only 51. The bill would require big spenders, including unions, corporations, and nonprofits, to disclose donations exceeding $10,000 to independent groups. Democrats contend such rules are needed since the Supreme Court, in its 2010 Citizens United decision, declared that corporations and unions have a constitutional right to spend freely on elections. The decision led to the rise of super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have been major players in national politics, especially the race for president. [Boston Globe,7/16/12]

The Examiner – GOP Senators block Disclose Act political donation transparency - On Monday evening United States Senate Republicans blocked a vote to move forward the 2012 version of the Disclose Act, a bill designed to bring greater transparency of donations to political groups by people, corporations and unions of more than $10,000. After the vote Democrats spent time until well after midnight continuing their floor debate on the bill. After more floor debate Tuesday morning, Senate Democrats plan to hold another vote on the bill Tuesday at 3:00 pm. [The Examiner, 7/17/12]

The corrosive effect of money on American politics is not a product of the 21st century.

More than 100 years ago, moneyed special interests had already tested the integrity of this country’s political system.

In 1899, Copper billionaire William Clark was elected to the United States Senate by the Montana state legislature. The contest was considered so blatantly swayed by bribery, the Senate refused to seat him.

Clark famously responded: “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale.”

Incensed Montana voters went on to pass the Corrupt Practices Act via referendum.

Less than a decade later, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt reigned in unlimited corporate giving to political candidates at the federal level as well.

This nation has a long history of curtailing the corrupting influence of money in politics.

But with its Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court erased a century of effort to protect the fairness and integrity of American elections.

That disastrous decision opened the door for big corporations, anonymous billionaires and foreign interests to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing voters.

For anyone who dismisses this change as politics as usual, think again.

During this year’s election, outside spending by GOP shell groups is expected to top $1 billion – that’s billion with a “B.”

The names of these new front groups contain words like “freedom” and “prosperity.”

But make no mistake – there is nothing free about an election purchased by a handful of billionaires for their own self-interest.

Just one of these outside groups, backed by wealthy oil interests, has promised to spend $400 million on negative ads filled with half-truths and distortions of President Obama’s record.

By comparison, during the 2008 election, Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign spent $370 million – total.

So this year one group’s special interest money will dwarf the entire budget of the Republican nominee in the last presidential election.

Democrats – and the majority of Americans – believe these unlimited corporate and special-interest contributions should be outlawed.

But in a post-Citizens United world, the least we should do is require groups spending millions on political attack ads to disclose their largest donors.

We owe it to voters to let them judge for themselves the attacks – and the motivations behind them.

The DISCLOSE Act would require political organizations of all stripes – liberal and conservative alike – to disclose donations in excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.

Safeguarding fair and transparent elections used to be an area where Democrats and Republicans could find common ground.

As far back as 1997, the Republican Leader said, “Disclosure is the best disinfectant.”

In fact, 14 Republicans now serving in this body voted to support stronger disclosure laws in 2000.

Yet last night those 14 Republicans did an about-face. And every one of my Republican colleagues voted to block the DISCLOSE Act.

It is obvious Republicans’ priority is to protect a handful of anonymous billionaires – billionaires willing to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to change the outcome of a close presidential contest.

But today they’ll have an opportunity to reconsider that backwards priority and stand up for the average voter instead.

I hope they join Democrats as we work to ensure all Americans – not just the wealthy few – have an equal voice in the political process.

“Senate Republicans today showed that their top priority is protecting a handful of anonymous billionaires, giving them an outsized advantage over regular American voters to sway close elections.

“Democrats sought to require large political donors to disclose their identities so voters could judge their motivations for themselves. This wasn’t a new concept. In fact, many Republicans who blocked this bill today once supported it. But today those same Republicans chose to side with powerful, anonymous donors, who like their nominee Mitt Romney appear to believe they get to play by their own set of rules.

“Judging by Republicans’ vote today and Governor Romney’s refusal to release more tax returns, Republicans have clearly decided that secrecy is more important to them than being straight with the American people.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell in 1997: “Disclosure Is The Best Disinfectant”

Sen. McConnell: “Disclosure of Campaign Contributions and Spending Should be Expedited.” “Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. These are the reforms which respect the Constitution and would enhance our democracy.” [NPR, 8/5/97]

Sen. Alexander Said He Supported “Full Disclosure.” Alexander said, “I support campaign finance reform, but to me that means individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure. In other words, any individual can give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed every day on the Internet.”  [Washington Post, 5/19/99]

Sen. Sessions Said “I Tend To Favor Disclosure.” Sessions said, “I don’t like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable.  To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure.”  [The Hill, 4/22/10]

Sen. Cornyn Said “I Think The System Needs More Transparency, So People Can More Easily Reach Their Own Conclusions.” Cornyn said, “this is our system.  I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions.” [McClatchy, 4/23/10]

Sen. Collins’ Spokesman Said “She Believes That It Is Important That Any Future Campaign Finance Laws Include Strong Transparency Provisions So The American Public Knows Who Is Contributing.” “‘As a co-sponsor of the 2002 campaign reform law, Sen. Collins was disappointed that the Supreme Court struck down so many key provisions of this bipartisan legislation,’ Kelley said. ‘She believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows who is contributing to a candidate’s campaign, as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue.’” [The Hill, 4/20/10]

Sen. Scott Brown Said “A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency.” Brown said, “A genuine campaign finance reform effort would include increased transparency, accountability and would provide a level playing field to everyone.” [Letter to Public Citizen,7/14/10]

Sen. McCain Said “There’s Too Much Money Washing Around, Too Much Of It We Don’t Know Who’s Behind It.” McCain said, “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.  There will be major scandals.”  [The Hill, 3/27/12]

Sen. Coburn Said “If You Have Transparency, You Will Have Accountability.” Coburn said,“If legislators were required to disclose all contributions to their campaigns, the public knowledge would naturally restrain legislators from acting out of the current quid pro quo mindset. They would refrain from taking questionable donations for fear of being found out. If you have transparency, you will have accountability.” [Press Release, 10/12/07]

Sen. Chambliss Said The Disclosure Provisions of the DISCLOSE Act “Don’t Seem Like a Bad Idea to Me.”  “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) also said he wants to see the details of the bill, but said the disclosure provisions ‘don’t seem like a bad idea to me.’” [The Hill, 4/22/10]

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The end of democracy… will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

Campaign finance reforms protected against the kind of corruption Jefferson foresaw by limiting political spending by corporations.

Then the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision, rolling back a century of work to make elections transparent and credible.

The result of Citizens United has been a flood of corporate, special-interest campaign spending by shadowy front groups with questionable motives.

Not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt – a Republican who put a stop to unlimited corporate donations – has America seen this kind of out-of-control spending to influence elections.

Democrats – and a majority of Americans – believe the Supreme Court got it very wrong on Citizens United.

Anonymous spending by so-called non-profits – often backed by huge corporate donors or a few wealthy individuals – used to make up 1 percent of election spending. After the landmark decision, it rose to a whopping 44 percent of spending.

There’s no question the Citizens United decision opened the door for big corporations and foreign entities to secretly spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections, undermining the fairness and integrity of the process.

Let’s look at the state of Nevada. Through the first part of this year, more money has been spent per capita on TV ads in Nevada than in any other battleground state in the country.

Most of the ads have been funded by anonymous groups flush with cash from big oil, Wall Street, foreign gaming interests and other industries seeking greater influence in Washington.

Voters in Nevada and across the country deserve to know who paid for these ads.

We’ve proven that it’s possible to remove the veil of secrecy from outside money, and make the process more transparent.

We can require large political donors to disclose their identities, so voters can judge their motivations for themselves.

Requiring large donors to disclose their identities isn’t a new concept.

In fact, Senator McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues once supported it.

The legislation before the Senate today – the DISCLOSE Act – would require disclosure of donations in excess of $10,000 if they will be used for campaign purposes.

The bill treats all political entities equally – whether they are unions, corporations, business associations or SuperPACs.

And, contrary to Republican claims, this legislation wouldn’t require organizations to turn over membership rosters or lists of grassroots donors.

Rather, it would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using front groups to shield their donations from disclosure.

Yet my Republican colleagues – with rare exception – have lined up against this common-sense legislation.

Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they’re trying to protect.

Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election?

These donors have something in common with their nominee. Like Mitt Romney, they believe they play by their own set of rules.

Mitt Romney has refused to release his tax returns.

From the one and only return we’ve seen, we know Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than many middle class families.

We know he has a Swiss bank account.

And we know he takes advantage of tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

But we can only guess what new secrets would be revealed if we could examine a dozen years of tax returns.

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney set the standard for presidential elections. He released 12 years of tax returns, so Americans could evaluate his record for themselves.

Even nominees for cabinet posts are required to release three years of tax returns, and declare financial holdings worth more than $1,000.

Romney’s refusal to be open and honest would disqualify him from being a cabinet secretary.

And his penchant for secrecy makes Americans wonder, what is he hiding?

Thomas Jefferson famously argued that democracy depends on an informed electorate.

If that’s true, and I believe it is, it stands to reason that disclosure can only strengthen our democracy.

But don’t take my word for it. As my friend, Mitch McConnell said: “Disclosure is the best disinfectant.”