Via HRC:

Dear Daniel, Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. As this summer leads into the 2010 election season, it's not difficult to find examples of our system being complicated, gritty, messy and sometimes devastating-and equal reminders of why it is better than anything else we have ever tried. Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, corporations may contribute to certain political committees. As you have read in our action alerts and in the news, Target and Best Buy recently donated large sums of money to a Minnesota group supporting a strongly anti-LGBT gubernatorial candidate. Before making this contribution, both companies had excellent records of support for the LGBT community, scoring 100% on the Corporate Equality Index. Target has since refused to right its wrong, and Best Buy has not responded to our call to remedy its action.  What does this mean for our democracy? Well, for starters, a democracy is as good as the players in it-corporations or humans. These companies made the wrong choice; knowing our opponents, that contribution could go to a dishonest campaign full of scare tactics and attacks.  Fortunately, that is not the last word. This week, we announced that we will devote $150,000 of our own resources to help elect a pro-equality governor and legislature in Minnesota. Victory in these elections could put marriage equality within reach in the North Star State. Each campaign cycle becomes more expensive than the last. The cost of campaign ads drives fundraising higher and higher. In ballot measure campaigns, donors from across the nation often contribute. To ensure that the voting public has a clear understanding of who is behind each measure, many states have enacted disclosure laws. The laws don’t prevent anyone from exercising their free speech rights, but they do ensure that democracy is conducted in the light of day, and not by secret organizations lurking in the shadows.  Although the public overwhelmingly supports knowing who is paying for the campaign ad that they’re watching, proponents of anti-LGBT ballot measures don’t. The so-called National Organization for Marriage, which contributed the majority of funds in the campaign to dismantle marriage equality in Maine, lost its challenge to Maine’s disclosure law. This ruling was yet another rebuke to NOM's efforts to undermine campaign disclosure laws that preserve democracy by letting the public know who is behind the ads and campaigns.  Democracy is a competition among ideas and principles. If you believe in what you are asking someone to vote for, you can be honest. If you believe that people would vote with you if they knew who you were, then you could come out of the shadows. Our opponents' attempts to escape their obligation to be forthright speak more loudly than any ad that they finance. When Congress returns and as the campaign season moves forward, we will speak louder still. Joe Solmonese President, Human Rights Campaign