Benefit held for crash victim
WSU vs. Milwaukee
Badin Spirit Olympics
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2010 > January > 25 > Entry
Husted urges campaign finance “transparency” in wake of U.S. Supreme Court ruling
In the wake of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibiting a ban on spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections, state Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, has proposed safeguards to “ensure transparency in campaign finance and advertising.”
Husted, who is running for secretary of state, outlined the proposal on Monday, Jan. 25, in a letter to Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, and House Speaker Armond Budish, D-Beachwood. Copies were sent to Gov. Ted Strickland and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
Husted said that he is drafting legislation to require:
*That all corporate and union expenditures on campaigns must clearly identify who is paying for the advertising.
*That corporations and unions must report the among of the expenditure and the individual corporate or union donors to the secretary of state.
“…we should act on the fact that the (Supreme) court did not prohibit disclosure requirements and take full advantage of this open door to shine light on these expenditures,” Husted said in the letter.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Amazing
January 26, 2010 10:24 AM | Link to this
I’m amazed at all the “progressives” and liberal saying this is a bad decision. The Supreme Court’s job is NOT to protect our rights, it is NOT to weigh out good vs. evil, it is NOT to allow rhetoric, politics and polls to sway it’s decisions. The Supreme Court’s ONLY job is to interpet the laws as they are written by the legislative branch and ensure they are constitutional. I don’t know the entire circumstances under which the financing was challenged and 150% doubt anyone writing here does either. But, I bet the Court made it’s decision based on the laws. If you want a different decision, write a better law. You have the chance (until Nov 2010 anyway).
By Squirrelly
January 26, 2010 9:12 AM | Link to this
I would still like to know what really went on during Obama’s campaign. Where all HIS campaign contributions came from. He was financed by progressives from all over the world, some not u.s. citizens. We all know this because he removed the identifier part when posting his contributions, so no one can track them.
By Joe Tellup
January 26, 2010 9:06 AM | Link to this
Your Right Concerned, this is the most anti America decision to come down the road in 100 years, and I thought the Supreme court was supposed to protect our rights, and trash them.
By Rob
January 26, 2010 7:44 AM | Link to this
This is rich - the Senator who doesn’t even live in his “district” and has yet to come clean about it wants “transparency”? What lies before us and lies behind us is nothing compared to what lies to our faces.
By greatly concerned
January 26, 2010 5:42 AM | Link to this
Full disclosure means we will all know who is buying the office. This decision opens the door for a foreign corporation or even individual to “buy” a Congressman or even a President. Now Boehner can pass out Tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of Congress without worry. Not a good Supreme Court decision.
By greatly concerned
January 26, 2010 5:40 AM | Link to this
Full disclosure means we will all know who is buying the office. This decision opens the door for a foreign corporation or even individual to “buy” a Congressman or even a President. Not a good Supreme Court decision.
By Sheila
January 26, 2010 3:04 AM | Link to this
If crooked politician, Jon Husted is sponsoring this bill, this means only one thing: he’s found a loophole elsewhere to wiggle through. Folks, Husted is not that honest.
By Karon
January 25, 2010 7:54 PM | Link to this
Agree with Senator Husted, except that I would include all donors, even individuals. Full disclosure is full disclosure after all.