Open Up

Publication: The Winston-Salem Journal

Editorial
May 3, 2007

Sometimes when politicians take campaign contributions, they prefer that the public doesn't hear about them right away. For their purposes, especially with controversial contributors, it is better if the news breaks after Election Day.

Rep. Thomas Wright, a Wilmington Democrat, faces that issue with the State Board of Elections. His pre-Election Day contribution reports fail to show money he received from controversial sources. The board wants to know if he acted willfully, and therefore, illegally.

Politicians don't have to break the law to delay publication of their contributions. Both state and federal law are designed - by politicians, of course - to create delays between the money's collection and its public reporting.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have tried to change the reporting system for three years. A bill to require the electronic filing of campaign-contribution reports was held up for all that time by Senate Republican leaders. (In these situations, minority parties usually favor open process and the majority favors a closed system.)

If candidates had to file electronically, the reports would speed through the system, and voters would see who is financially supporting candidates in their elections. As a fringe benefit, the bill would save taxpayers $250,000 a year.

The bill has so much support this year that the sponsoring senators are trying to get it passed by unanimous consent, a process that means it does not vie for precious floor time or face insincere amendments. Unfortunately, in the Senate one member can anonymously block this process.

One Republican, known only to a few members of that party, is blocking this bill. The GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refuses to name the senator. The Sunlight Foundation, a D.C. nonprofit, says that every Republican senator has denied being the source of the objection.

It is within the rights of any senator to oppose a bill. But to do so anonymously is cowardly, and to do so while professing not to be the blocker is deceitful.

This senator obviously lacks the courage needed to bring the case against electronic filing of campaign contributions into the open. Until he or she does so, there is no way that the sponsors can address those objections.

The block may force the bill's sponsors to bring the bill to the floor and face the many problems that creates.

It would be far better if the one senator in question simply went public with his or her objections.

It is indeed ironic that a bill designed to bring more openness to the political process is being obstructed in such a secretive way.