“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Those few words from the First Amendment of the Constitution are among the most cited in American history, and remind us that citizens (in theory) have the right to say what they want without fear of persecution from the government. Today, however, the roles are reversed and it is the politicians who are attempting to speak their minds without fear of persecution from citizens.

Back in March, the Government Accountability Board (GAB) of Wisconsin submitted administrative rule 1.28 to the Legislature for approval. The rule changed the policy on pre-election advertising by redefining what counts as a campaign ad to include ads that do not specifically say “vote for” or “vote against,” but might as well. This means that any advertisement advocating for a candidate will be subject to campaign finance regulations and requirements, which include disclosing who paid for it.

Basically, the new rule says that if you’re trying to influence voters in this state, you have to tell them who gave you the money to do it. Before the rule, which went into effect Aug. 1st, corporations, unions and special interest groups were able to finance and air “issue ads” in pre-election times and were protected from having to disclose their donations by the First Amendment. The unregulated ads were able to sway voters who may not have been influenced if they had known who was benefiting from their vote. The new rule was put into place to protect such voters by increasing transparency in political ads. In today’s corrupt political landscape, this was a good first step in campaign reform.

But, as is often true in politics, one step forward and three steps back. The new rule is good for citizens but bad for the political groups who need to conceal their funding sources to be effective. So, in retaliation, two prominent political organizations did the only thing they know how to do: sue. Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now have filed a joint suit against the GAB, saying that the ruling violated the groups’ First Amendment rights. While they didn’t succeed in abolishing the rule, they have managed to push through some changes. The case is still pending, but the GAB has signed off on amending the rule to allow ads to run in the period immediately before an election and not be arbitrarily declared campaign ads. This small victory will surely mean that the groups will be trying to widen the loophole and that voters are still not fully protected from shady campaigns.

So. Some political people sue some other political people for not letting them get away with deception. Nothing new, why should anyone care? Most of us have never heard of either of the groups, much less realize that they are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Wisconsin Club for Growth is ultra-conservative, while One Wisconsin Now calls itself progressive. The only thing they have in common is the word “Wisconsin” in their names. The fact that they agreed to file a joint suit shows that groups from both parties are corrupt. Both sides are guilty and it is the voting public that gets punished.

Back to the question of why you should care. So what if an ad doesn’t say who paid to have it aired or printed? We have the right to know about candidate’s dirty secrets, so why should it matter who exposes them? Here’s an example of why the identity of campaign financers is important. Late last month, Target donated a large chunk of money to MN Forward, a conservative organization similar to Wisconsin Club for GrowthClub for Growth Wisconsin. While donations of this sort are common, Target put itself in a bind because MN Forward happens to be airing ads advocating for state Rep. Tom Emmer, a politician who is vocally against gay marriage or relationships of any kind.

This has led to an uproar within the LGBT community, and many are boycotting Target as a result. If the donation were not subject to laws about disclosing campaign financing, the gay community would not be aware that by shopping at Target they were indirectly helping a candidate they would never want to elect. Without rule 1.28, Wisconsinites may too be hoodwinked into supporting companies or candidates that are working against the good of the voters.

In case you weren’t aware, it is an election year, and politics have gotten dirty. While one ruling by the GAB can’t change the political climate, it can be the first step in campaign overhaul. Voters deserve to know as much about a candidate as possible, and that includes who is supporting them and with what agenda. Only when armed with this information can voters make a truly informed decision. Be one of the informed ones and vote September 14!

Allegra Dimperio ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.