Last Thursday, Gov. Lincoln Chafee '75 P'14 stood with the leadership of the Rhode Island Senate and House of Representatives to introduce the Transparency in Political Spending Act. In a post-Citizens United world of potentially limitless, unregulated and undisclosed donations to so-called SuperPACs, the bill would make Rhode Island a leader in the fight for fairer and more transparent elections. Specifically, it would require outside groups campaigning on behalf of referenda to disclose the individual donors supporting them.
While introducing the bill, Chafee argued that it would "(make) those individuals and organizations trying to influence the outcome of an election accountable to the people of Rhode Island." While we applaud Chafee's strong stance against undisclosed independent expenditures — and welcome the way in which this bill will bring much-needed transparency to the state's political landscape — we are troubled by the bill's limited scope, applying beefed-up disclosure regulations only to groups advocating for ballot measures. We urge the governor to extend disclosure requirements to all independent expenditures, including those on behalf of individual candidates.
Although much of the concern about Super PACs has been focused on the national presidential race, the forces of big money are blowing at Rhode Island's door as well. This past winter, while the legislature debated how to reform state employees' pensions, a group called Engage Rhode Island spent $617,000 promoting the bill.
If EngageRI started electioneering — as it has publicly acknowledged it plans to do — its major donors may remain unknown until after Election Day. In this past election cycle, over $1.9 million was spent by outside groups trying to influence state elections in Rhode Island. Under the Transparency in Political Spending Act, Rhode Islanders would be able to access electioneering groups' financial reports in a timely fashion, and groups would have to publicly state their largest donors in every print, television, radio or internet advertisement.
Financial disclosure is not a perfect solution — outside groups can still saturate the airwaves with election advertising. But even while enshrining the right to this unlimited spending in Citizens United, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of financial disclosure, noting that "prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations … accountable for their positions and supporters."
Armed with knowledge about what interests are behind groups with pleasant-sounding names — like "And For the Sake of the Kids," a group in West Virginia whose major donors were coal company executives — citizens will be empowered to make a more informed decision on Election Day.
We commend Chafee for taking a public stand against the invidious influence of outside spending in state referenda and supporting legislation that would make Rhode Island a national leader in campaign disclosure. In the words of Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, "Campaign finance disclosure is absolutely vital to the health of our representative democracy. This is no less true in the case of individual races than in that of ballot measures. We hope that this act is only the first step towards a campaign finance system that would apply to all groups, no matter what candidates or causes they support.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
