At Greg’s place I have a piece up on the Obama administration’s reported decision to compel private companies with government contracts to disclose their political donations:
These firms are getting paid taxpayer dollars in exchange for their services. That means that any political causes they are funding are being paid for with the public's money. Corporations may have freedom of speech, but they don't have the right to anonymously spend taxpayer money in pursuit of causes the public is not told about. The public has an interest in knowing how its money is being spent — and it has an interest in knowing who is spending what money on political causes.
This is no less true now that some Democrats are putting together groups to facilitate outside spending on their behalf, some of it undisclosed. In fact, if anything, it's more true. In the absence of legislation that would compel such disclosure across the board, an executive order that forces private companies to let the public know what they're doing with taxpayer dollars seems like a small but reasonable step in the public interest. Freedom of speech does not include the right to anonymously fund that speech with our money.
Over at the ActBlue blog, Adrian Arroyo makes a different point:
So, to recap, according to John Yoo, the American people don’t have any right to privacy. The government can seize your phone records, lock you away forever, have you tortured, and whatever else seems like it might stop the terrorists. But should Uncle Sam ask contractors that stand to benefit financially from their campaign donations to disclose who they’re giving to—well, that would be government overreach.
In short, Yoo thinks corporations have more rights than people do.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent makes the important point that Dems financing outside groups doesn't change the fact that ideally, Democrats would like to see full disclosure across the board.
