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.

Facebook Twitter Email

Sources:

• 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
• Data on total federal campaign spending: “The Money Behind the Elections,” Center for Reponsive Politics, accessed March 19, 2010
  http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php
• 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
• Open Secrets begins tracking political money online, 1996: “About the Site,” Open Secrets, accessed March 19, 2010
  http://www.opensecrets.org/about/tour.php
• 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