3Unfortunately, however, as evidenced by the 2010 congressional races, such a system of “effective disclosure” did not exist on the day Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision andstill does not exist.The new opportunities for independent spending in federal elections permitted by the
Citizens United
decision resulted in more than
$135 million in secret contributions
being spentby outside groups to influence the 2010 congressional races. This represented an unprecedentedreturn to secret money in federal elections that has not been seen since before the Watergatescandals of the 1970s.Secret money in American politics is a formula for scandal and corruption. As AlbertHunt, executive Washington editor and a columnist for
Bloomberg News
aptly noted in acolumn:A prediction: The U.S. is due for a huge scandal involving big money, bribery andpoliticians. Not the small fry that dominates the ethics fights in Washington; really bigstuff; think Watergate.It is axiomatic in politics that without accountability there is abuse. This year, there is amassive infusion of special-interest money into U.S. politics that is secret, not reported.The American people overwhelmingly support disclosure of the campaign financeactivities being conducted by outside groups. According to a
New York Times/CBS
Poll
last year(October 28, 2010):92 percent of Americans said that it is important for the law to require campaigns andoutside spending groups to disclose how much money they have raised, where the moneycame from and how it was used.In the landmark case of
Buckley v. Valeo
(1976), the Supreme Court explained whycampaign finance disclosure is constitutional and necessary. In upholding the comprehensivedisclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Court stated:First, disclosure provides the electorate with information "as to where political campaignmoney comes from and how it is spent by the candidate" in order to aid the voters inevaluating those who seek federal office.…….