Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was out on the hustings this week promoting his DISCLOSE Act, which would require the sort of independent political groups playing an outsize role in the presidential election to report on who is bankrolling their operations.

It is, plainly, a good bit of public policy. Voters should know who is peddling what. And it's a shame that Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the measure — once on Monday and again on Tuesday.

But disclosure, in the end, isn't nearly enough.

There is, perhaps, no more telling indicator of its inadequacy than its strange political career. It was not so long ago, after all, that the GOP embraced disclosure as campaign finance reform lite — an alternative to calls for sharper limits on political spending.

Indeed, the Senate passed a law quite similar to Whitehouse's bill by a 92-6 margin in 2000. Fourteen Republican senators who voted for that measure are still in the Senate today; their opposition to the DISCLOSE Act was uniform.

Democrats have held firm in their support for the idea. But their trying-hard-to-sound-ethusiastic statements in support of the DISCLOSE Act acknowledge it is a de minimis response to the problem of big money in politics.

The court has crushed our democracy by unleashing torrents of corporate cash through the Citizens United decision, Congressional Democrats seem to suggest, and all we can do now is let the public know who, exactly, is buying off their leaders.

The frame, here, is all wrong.

Invoking Citizens United may be a smart bit of pr — the mere mention of the decision can get a certain breed of wonky, overeducated liberal in a lather — but the case is not the watershed that some suggest.

The truth is, big money donors have been able corrupt the political process for decades. In the 1990s, it was huge "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties. And when the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law stamped out that practice, the money flowed into independent political groups — groups that don't look all that different from what we have post-Citizens United.

In the 2004 presidential election, remember, it was liberal billionaire George Soros versus the big-money backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Yes, the money pouring into independent political organizations is growing at a staggering pace. But as Matt Bai pointed out in a recent piece in The New York Times Magazine, the growth was evident prior to Citizens United.

And the conservatives writing the big checks this time around have a motivation that eclipses any Supreme Court edict: the first sitting Democratic president in the age of the independent expenditure.

The point, here, is that the problem of money in politics runs deeper than Citizens United. And while disclosure would make for a nice incremental step, incrementalism is inadequate — both as salve and as politics.

Disclosure will never grip the public imagination, will never force the Republicans' hand. And even bolder campaign finance reform, if framed as campaign finance reform, will make the eyes glaze.

What we need is public financing of campaigns and limits on independent spending, the latter requiring a constitutional amendment. And it's got to be sold by a bi-partisan, grassroots campaign willing to drop the wonkese and say something colorful and irreverent that can mobilize voters.

I'm picturing, to start, 10,000 billboards with an image of a Wall Streeter passing cash to a politician: "They Bought Washington, Let's Buy it Back." There are probably a dozen RISD students who could come up with a better idea in an afternoon. Get to work, I say. Whatever you come up is sure to be an improvement over what we've got now.

Related: Local heroes of 2011, All that you paid for, Too soon, More more >
  Topics: This Just In , Campaign Finance, budget, campaign,  More more >
| More

Most Popular
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   LIBERAL WARRIOR  |  April 10, 2013
    When it comes to his signature issues — climate change, campaign finance reform, tax fairness — Whitehouse makes little secret of his approach: marshal the facts, hammer the Republicans, and embarrass them into action.
    A key Brown University oversight committee has voted to recommend the school divest from coal, delivering a significant victory to student climate change activists.
  •   HACKING POLITICS: A GUIDE  |  April 03, 2013
    Last year, the Internet briefly upended everything we know about American politics.
  •   BREAK ON THROUGH  |  March 28, 2013
    When I spoke with Treasurer Gina Raimondo this week, I opened with the obligatory question about whether she'll run for governor. "I'm seriously considering it," she said. "But I think as you know — we've talked about it before — I have little kids: a six-year-old, an eight-year-old. I'm a mother. It's a big deal."
  •   THE LIBERAL CASE FOR GUNS  |  March 27, 2013
    The school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut spurred hope not just for sensible gun regulation, but for a more nuanced discussion of America's gun culture. Neither wish has been realized.

 See all articles by: DAVID SCHARFENBERG