Watchdog Groups Begrudgingly Back DISCLOSE Act

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The carve-out that the National Rifle Association managed to secure in the House’s campaign finance reform bill has left many liberals gnashing their teeth. A slew of liberal groups have threatened to pull their support for the DISCLOSE Act—meant to curb the excesses of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—if the NRA’s exemption stays in. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has even suggested the NRA deal may be unconstitutional in a statement released Wednesday.

But not all Democratic allies have followed suit. Labor unions are currently lobbying to push through their own deal in exchange for supporting the bill, which would require independent groups to out the donors that back campaign ads. Five watchdog groups—Common Cause, Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters, and Democracy 21—have urged lawmakers to vote for the bill, though some have made no secret of their distaste for the NRA deal. “We’re uncomfortable with giving anyone any exemption. It continues to be a hard decision,” Craig Holman of Public Citizen told McClatchy.

Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW) announced its own support for the bill after mistakenly being included as a signatory on a letter to Nancy Pelosi signed by a host of liberal groups that opposed it. The group’s followed up with its own letter to Pelosi, noting the error and hailing the importance of political compromise: “We are not interested in seeing the perfect be the enemy of the good and are well aware that the NRA’s opposition to the bill might be sufficient to doom its chance of passage.”

Given the nearly unanimous opposition from the right on the bill, the Democrats will need all the friends they can get if the bill stands a chance. And it will be interesting to see if President Obama himself ends up making a strong case for the legislation. Only a few weeks ago, Obama was publicly railing against Citizens United and arguing for the need for campaign finance reform. But that was before BP‘s big oily mess had engulfed his presidency.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend