They say “the more things change, the more they stay the same,” and things have certainly changed since the early 1900s. Yet in some ways they haven’t changed at all, either in marketing or politics. I was reminded of this recently when I ran across something long-time Albion resident the late Norman Smith wrote in 1982:

“My father used to tell me a story about the early 1900s. As a boy he went to an auto show back East. There he saw all of the latest autos. Each was in a booth and every booth had a salesman out front telling about all the wonderful things his car could do. There were fabulous claims and counterclaims and sheets full of statistics. My dad told me the show was just like politics.”

Norm went on to observe “Between now and Election Day we, the voters, will be treated like the crowd at the car show. The strategy is to confuse and mislead those who cannot recognize dirty political tricks. Perhaps the dirtiest trick will be the amount of money spent on campaign ads. As you endure the full-page ads, the fancy TV commercials, the last minute bombardment of charges and countercharges, remember what your candidate said about not being influenced by ‘moneyed interests.’ Stop and think about the cost.”

The only thing that’s changed since Norm wrote this in 1982 is that the candidates no longer try very hard to pretend they aren’t influenced by “moneyed interests.” One of the points presidential candidate Donald Trump trumpets is, in fact, that he’s so wealthy he isn’t beholden to any donors.

Because donations can lead to influence, until recently voters could access reports filed by candidates disclosing who had contributed what. By following the money voters can judge for themselves which moneyed interests are going to have the most influence on any particular candidate. Every state – and the federal government – requires disclosure.

Now, however, as more and more money floods the political landscape, wealthy donors have found ways to circumvent state and federal disclosure rules. When challenged on this it’s claimed that disclosing how much money certain donors give would generate a backlash against them. In other words some people donate such outrageous amounts to influence elections that the rest of us would be outraged if we knew it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that making campaign contributions is a form of free speech and as such protected by the First Amendment. Yet in all other areas of speech – with the notable exception of the Internet — it is understood that one must take responsibility for one’s words. With rights, after all, comes the responsibility to exercise them wisely and accept the consequences for what one says — or contributes.

I suppose in an age when our Second Amendment right to bear arms has become divorced from seemingly any responsibility to use those arms safely and wisely, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the right to free speech is now divorced from accountability for what one says or donates. But whether or not we know who’s paying the bill, with the exception of Trump, every promotion for every candidate, and every “information ad” that denigrates his or her opponent has been funded by individuals and/or groups that have a vested interest in seeing their candidate win.

Times change but politics doesn’t – so long as it takes money to run for office voters need to know where that money is coming from. The fact that more and more donors don’t want us to ‘follow the money’ only emphasizes how important disclosure really is.