Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill intended to stop the flood of corporate money into elections. This is an incredibly urgent issue since the Supreme Court legalized unlimited political spending by big corporations.
Unfortunately, this bill would require most corporations to only report how many millions they spend. History shows that transparency alone won't stop big corporations from buying our elections.
We put together this chart make the point. If enough people understand why a "transparency-only" plan won't work, we can convince Congress to push for a stronger bill, like the Fair Elections Now Act. Click the buttons below to share this chart with your friends via email, Facebook, or Twitter.
Summary of Van Hollen-Schumer proposal: "BREAKING: Congress's response to Citizens United," Fix Congress First, February 11, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87102
Projected 2010 spending: "Midterm Elections Will Cost at Least $3.7 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Estimates," Center for Responsive Politics, February 23, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87103
Reporting required for "soft" money, June 2000: "Clinton signs bill requiring groups to list donors," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 2, 2000 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87107
"I approve these message" ads appear, 2004: "'Tagline' could alter tone of ads," USA Today, March 10, 2004 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87108
New reporting for lobbying and earmarks, September 2007: "Bush Signs Reform Bill Pushed By Dems," Politico, September 14, 2007 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=87109