Donor disclosure the least to expect in presidential campaign

Campaign jockeys like to say money is the mother's milk of politics, but frankly that debases motherhood to an act of prostitution.

I like to think of money as the vampire's blood of politics. Not only is the imagery more appropriate, it also helps explain how so many incumbents have haunted the halls of Congress for so long.

In Washington, almost everyone is talking about the importance of donor disclosure. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which it narrowly ruled that the First Amendment right of free speech prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by unions and corporations, millions have been pouring into the coffers of political action committees focused on winning the race for president.

If Citizens United set the "True Blood" tone of the new reality of presidential campaigns, which finds both Democrats and Republicans gorging themselves on enormously plump checks from millionaires and billionaires, one hope remained to return the plasma-fest to something vaguely resembling the democratic process: donor disclosure.

With full disclosure we might not elect the best candidate, but at least we'd know the identity of the individuals who were bidding to buy the highest office in the land.

In the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that "disclosure is a less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech." And the latest version of the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, better known as DISCLOSE, set the bar of identity at $10,000. It's no secret many powerhouse PACS are funded by a few generous donors.

So, who wouldn't reasonably favor campaign disclosure?

That depends on when you ask. This time last year, more than a dozen Republican senators joined the Democrats in embracing DISCLOSE. But this is an election year, and this week Senate Republicans retreated behind an ominous and threatening missive from the National Rifle Association claiming DISCLOSE would "turn membership and donor lists over to the government."

When it came time to face a little sunlight, some members of the U.S. Senate hid from DISCLOSE like vampires in a bad horror flick. Two attempts to move the legislation forward were split along party lines.

A jabbing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "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."

In a column written for USA Today on July 5, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell countered, "Billed as 'reform,' the measure is an attempt to identify and punish political enemies, or at the very least, intimidate others from participating in the process - an effort that's already underway."

Do the Koch brothers seem intimidated by the coverage they've received for underwriting the GOP agenda and putting the Tea Party movement on scholarship? It's difficult to imagine.

Does casino mogul Sheldon Adelson feel overwhelmed by pressure after his multimillion-dollar donations to benefit the candidacies of failed presidential bidder Newt Gingrich and presumptive nominee Mitt Romney?

Far from it. In fact, Adelson has pledged to contribute up to $100 million to defeat President Barack Obama. One of the richest men on the planet calls his willingness to donate "limitless."

On Monday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., offered a history lesson many colleagues ignored. Quoting James Madison, he said, " 'A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.' A vote for DISCLOSE is a vote to arm the people with the power that knowledge gives, to arm them with the popular information about elections - information necessary to prevent this great popular government of ours from becoming a special interest farce, information necessary to protect this democracy from the tragedy, as John McCain predicted, of scandal that will result."

Call it a campaign season stunt if you'd like. It's well known the Republican majority in the House wasn't interested in taking up DISCLOSE.

But at least acknowledge the obvious: The only way to truly understand your vampire is to know who is feeding him.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Email him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith. Follow him on Twitter @jlnevadasmith.