I received correspondence from Scott Wilk recently saying
why he didn't support SB 27, which requires nonprofit
organizations to disclose the names, addresses and
employers of donors of $1,000 or more when their funds are
used to make contributions or expenditures of more than
$50,000 in any one year, or more than $100,000 over four
years.
Wilk cited "privacy" as his reasoning for voting against
this "Clean Money" bill.
Thank goodness it passed with three Republicans voting for
it.
It baffles me how Wilk goes against what voters clearly
want, which is "transparency" in elections. The people want
to know who is funding candidates and propositions because
this helps them make informed choices and not be
manipulated by slick media campaigns.
A March 2013 PPIC survey found that 84 percent of likely
voters want increased public disclosure of funding sources
for initiative campaigns, including 80 percent of
Republicans.
Nearly 20,000 Californians signed petitions for SB 27.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in Doe v. Reed, 2010, about
disclosure of names on ballot petitions, stated: "Requiring
people to stand up in public for their political acts
fosters civic courage, without which democracy is
doomed.
"For my part, I do not look forward to a society which,
thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even
exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum
hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the
accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the
Home of the Brave."
Wilk still has a chance to prove he's not completely
against transparency by voting yes on SB 52, the California
DISCLOSE Act, the bill to make political ads show who's
really paying for them.
