Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

GOP senators benefiting the most from NO DISCLOSE

Among the Republicans voting Tuesday to block a bill requiring disclosure of donors underwriting political ads were many who have benefited from the contributions of groups that don't disclose their donors.

The black hole of political disclosure

Our Sunlight Foundation colleague, Lee Drutman, has written elsewhere about the amount of dark money -- political donations that come without donors attached -- flowing into this year's campaign. But what about the conduits? As the Senate debates the DISCLOSE Act this week, a measure that would take modest steps towards adding a little transparency back into the campaign finance system, it's worth taking a look at the entities that are taking advantage of the loopholes that allow them to avoid disclosing -- sometimes just donors, sometimes just about everything.

McCain campaigns for Romney, transparency or not

Political irony: That's probably the best definition for what happened Monday when when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., probably the only GOP lawmaker to express interest in the Disclose Act, rallied Michigan on behalf of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who has turned his back on requests to be more open with his campaign finance. 

Libertarian think tank: Get behind DISCLOSE (or something like it)

A bill requiring super PACs and other outside political groups to include the names of top donors on their ads will hit the Senate floor next month, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said Friday. Meanwhile, an unlikely source warned the Republicans who are expected to filibuster it that they are standing in the way of the inevitable. 

Law professors push for corporations to disclose political spending

With corporate political spending--some of it secret--expected to explode in the 2012 election cycle, a group of law professors is petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to make a formal policy requiring corporations to disclose such expenditures to shareholders and the public.

Minnesota disclosure rules work, Target's contribution revealed

When Target made that controversial $150,000 donation in July to a conservative political group, they were able to do so because of new rules set in place by Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case.    Minnesota previously took steps to make sure people would know about such contributions, and it worked. Read here to find out the steps Target had to take in its expenditure. 

Citizens United: Tennessee's response

Citizens United: Massachusetts' response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at Massachusetts:

Citizens United: Rhode Island's response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at Rhode Island:

Citizens United: Michigan's response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at Michigan:

Citizens United: North Carolina's possible response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at North Carolina, a state working on it's response to Citizens United:

Citizens United: New York, California and Washington

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at states that didn't have to change their rules, but have anyway:

Citizens United: Kentucky's response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're onto our ninth state, Kentucky:

Citizens United: Alaska's response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're onto our eighth state, Alaska.