claim: "eight of the nine justices in the supreme court decision (on campaign finance) said that not only is it constitutional for congress to require disclosure of the special interest money, but they recommend we do it."
author: charles schumer
evidence_1: oct 18, 2012 ... the court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination  with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of  corruption.” so if the ... the supreme court kept limits on disclosure in place, and  super pacs are required to report regularly on who their donors are.
evidence_2: campaign finance reform is the political effort in the united states to change the  involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns. although  attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the  modern era of "campaign finance reform" in the united states begins with the  passage of the ...
evidence_3: jan 15, 2015 ... in the five years since the supreme court's citizens united decision the  dominance of big money over politics and policy has grown, seemingly without ...  us from having an equal chance to influence the political process,4 and that  government is not serving our interests but rather serving special interests.5 ...
evidence_4: citizens united v. federal election commission 558 u.s. 310 (2010) is a  landmark u.s. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case  dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. the  united states supreme court held (5–4) on january 21, 2010 that the free  speech clause of the ...
evidence_5: apr 2, 2014 ... "we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only  governmental interest this court accepted as legitimate" in a 1976 ruling, said  chief justice john roberts, who wrote the opinion of the court's conservative  majority. "they instead intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to ...