Posted by Lawman, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 21, 2012 at 10:16 am

What are the names of the top ten contributors to the fundraiser in support of the bill?

Posted by Redwood, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 21, 2012 at 10:26 am

Lawman - took about ten seconds to find who supports the DISCLOSE Act - the California Clean Money Campaign.

How long will it take you to find the top three funders for all the other initiatives, without this becoming law?

Web Link

Web Link

Transparency is a good thing, especially when buying politicians.

Posted by Steve C, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 21, 2012 at 11:21 am

It's a start. Facing a tough climb though. Politicians are sure to put up a huge fight to quash this bill designed to expose their real legislative incentives.

Posted by McCain/Feingold believer, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 21, 2012 at 11:30 am

Lawman: The invitation to the fundraiser listed all of the donors over $100, which is more than Citizens United requires.

130 local Californians who attended this fundraiser believe that money should not buy political office. Less than 100 billionaires in the United States are buying our country.

Posted by Arch Conwervative, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm

I assume that this also includes unions and PACs.

Posted by public financing, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on May 21, 2012 at 3:59 pm

It does.

Start with this, move to public financing, with mandatory lower costs for public financed ads, over the public spectrum.

TV ads warp the financing requirements, also drive up everyones ad budgets in election years, from Anhuiser Busch to Exxon.

No CoC money, no union or pac money. Self finance? No public money.

Posted by Lawman, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 22, 2012 at 10:39 am

Redwood and McCain/Feingold believer, for the record, I am totally in favor of the DISCLOSE Act. However, I found it ironical that the Weekly's story about it talked about the local fundraiser but did not mention the top 10 or even 3 contributors, either by name or amount, while emphasizing the importance of transparency. And the links you provided did not provide any info responsive to my inquiry.

Posted by Redwood, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 22, 2012 at 11:02 am

Lawman - so, nothing illegal here, just disappointment on the reporting, and if any actual reporters (rather than just transcribing a press release), the reporters failing to ask appropriate questions.

Yes, disappointing. Irony, or lack of reporting?

At a larger level, it is a catch-22, in these days of Citizens United and it's almost unlimited cash from billionaires to support their issues (whether fringe candidates, anti-lawyer, anti-union, anti-regulations, etc..), that a lot of donors to clean money campaigns and elections may have to bite their tongue and contribute to c3's and c4's just to keep the issues from being swamped by the PAC's against fair, free and clean elections.

Before the whining starts about union money, if you're going to make that claim, back it up with facts, from THIS election cycle, not pre-CU cycles like 2008. Unions are getting swamped this cyccle from the billionaires, much of it not transparent but hidden in 503(c)4's.

I do like the post above that references cost of TV ads, when those ads run over a public asset such as the public spectrum. It's a near impossible task to implement, but that would be a key component to clean money and lowering the cost of elections.