THE RISE OF DARK MONEY IN CAMPAIGNS

ABSTRACT: An increasing amount and proportion of election spending is coming from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors. This so-called “dark money” keeps voters in the dark about who is trying to influence their votes. Legislation to require disclosure of donors to “dark money” groups has been introduced at the federal level and in a number of state legislatures.

We need Representatives and Senators in Congress who will reform our campaign finance system. Ironically, there is a super PAC being formed to elect Congress people who will reform our campaign finance system. I urge you to join this effort now. Please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old) to participate.

FULL POST: An increasing amount and proportion of election spending is coming from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors. They claim to be social welfare organizations [501(c)(4)s] or professional trade associations [501(c)(6)s] despite spending millions of dollars on political activity. [1] This so-called “dark money” keeps voters in the dark about who is trying to influence their votes.

In the 2014 election cycle to-date, three times as much dark money has been spent as had been spent at this point in 2012, even though that was a presidential election year. Furthermore, 2014 dark money spending to-date is almost 20 times that of the last mid-term election in 2010. [2] If the 2014 spending pattern is the same as in 2010, over $400 million of dark money will be spent by election day.

So far in the 2014 election cycle for the US Senate, groups outside and supposedly independent of candidates’ campaigns, are responsible for 59% of the TV ads aired, a big increase from 2012. More than half of those ads have been paid for by “dark money” groups that don’t disclose their donors. [3]

Legislation to require disclosure of donors to “dark money” groups has been introduced at the federal level and in a number of state legislatures. The federal DISCLOSE Act was filibustered in the US Senate in September 2010. (There were 59 votes in favor, a clear majority, but one short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster.) A new version of the bill was introduced in 2012 but is stalled in the Senate.

In Massachusetts, and in some other states as well, legislation is progressing that would increase the disclosure of donors to political spending and the timeliness with which it must occur. The MA law would require disclosure of all donors promptly, before the election, so voters would know who was trying to influence their votes. [4] (If you live in Massachusetts, now would be a good time to call your legislators and urge them to support the timely disclosure of contributors to political spending). Super PACs are already running ads focused on the November election for Massachusetts’ Governor. [5] And in last year’s contest for Mayor in Boston, organizations independent of the candidates’ campaigns spent over $3.8 million, much of it dark money. This spending was more than two-thirds as much as the campaigns of the two finalists spent on their own ($5.4 million). [6]

The use of dark money is growing in part because wealthy individuals’ millions of dollars of campaign spending is receiving increased attention. Many of these wealthy individuals prefer to remain anonymous and therefore prefer to channel their exorbitant campaign spending through groups that do not report their donors. [7] Corporations similarly prefer to remain anonymous when they engage in political spending. So they are channeling their contributions through dark money groups as well. [8]

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) has been digging into the money spent in the 2012 campaigns by Super PACs and non-profit organizations. It has now documented a web of over a dozen such organizations that transferred money among themselves. This served to hide the true sources of campaign spending, delay any reporting of it, and circumvent IRS limits on political activity by non-profit, tax exempt organizations. [9] (See my post of 2/28/14 for more details.)

We need Representatives and Senators in Congress who will reform our campaign finance system to:

Require timely reporting of all political spending and contributors, so voters know before they vote who is spending money to influence their votes;
Severely limit political activity by non-profit, tax exempt organizations; and
Improve enforcement of existing campaign finance laws.

Ironically, there is a super PAC being formed to elect Congress people who will reform our campaign finance system. I urge you to join this effort now, as there is a July 4^th deadline for raising $5 million to get this effort off the ground. Please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old) to participate. If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_. (See my post of 6/10/14 for more information on the MAYDAY Super PAC.)

[1] Center for Responsive Politics, 4/30/14, “OpenSecrets.org provides testimony, data for Senate Rules hearing on dark money,” https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/opensecrets-org-provides-testimony-data-for-senate-rules-hearing-on-dark-money/

[2] Maguire, R., 4/30/14, “How 2014 is shaping up to be the darkest money election to date,” https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/how-2014-is-shaping-up-to-be-the-darkest-money-election-to-date/

[3] Center for Responsive Politics, 4/30/14, see above

[4] Phillips, F., 6/18/14, “Bill would increase super PAC disclosures,” The Boston Globe

[5] Miller, J., 4/28/14, “Super PAC launches ads against Charlie Baker, Common Cause decries outside spending,” The Boston Globe

[6] McMorrow, P., 11/12/13, “Citizens United comes to local races,” The Boston Globe

[7] Gold, M., 5/30/14, “Attacks drive GOP donors to stealth nonprofits,” The Boston Globe from The Washington Post

[8] Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58

[9] Maguire, R., 12/3/13, “At least 1 in 4 dark money dollars in 2012 had Koch links,” OpenSecretsblog (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/12/1-in-4-dark-money-dollars-in-2012-c.html)

THE RISE OF SUPER PACs AND THE DEMISE OF DEMOCRACY

ABSTRACT: The rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) in the last four years and their ability, along with that of wealthy individuals and organizations, to spend unlimited amounts of money in US political campaigns are dramatically reshaping our politics. This is a new version of a very old game – pay to play – where private interests buy access and influence in our political system and policy making. As a result, independent spending – spending on political campaigns separate from and independent (theoretically) of the candidates’ campaign committees themselves – skyrocketed in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to over $400 million, ten times its level in 2008.

In the two-year 2012 election cycle, 132 wealthy Americans provided 60 percent of the Super PAC money raised. Super PACs have become the primary vehicle through which the wealthy elite exert political influence that overwhelms the common good and the voice of the vast majority of the people. Super PACS are just the latest, but certainly the most toxic, in a trend of increasing spending and influence by wealthy special interests in our political system.

FULL POST: The rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) in the last four years and their ability, along with that of wealthy individuals and organizations, to spend unlimited amounts of money in US political campaigns are dramatically reshaping our politics. This is a new version of a very old game – pay to play – where private interests buy access and influence in our political system and policy making. [1]

First, a little historical background on the rise of political spending and influence by wealthy individuals and corporations. In 1976, the Supreme Court (in the Buckley vs. Valeo decision) declared that the First Amendment gave rich people the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political elections – so long as that influence was “independent” of a political campaign. It also allowed them to spend unlimited sums on their own campaigns if they ran for an elected office.

In 2010, the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case gave corporations, unions, and other organizations the same right to spend unlimited money in political campaigns that it had given to rich people. In March, 2010, another court ruled that if rich people could spend as much as they want independently of any political campaign, they should also be free to contribute as much as they want to any independent political action committee. Thus the Super PAC was created – free to accept and spend unlimited amounts of money, so long as it did not coordinate with any candidate’s campaign (at least not openly). As a result, independent spending – spending on political campaigns separate from and independent (theoretically) of the candidates’ campaign committees themselves – skyrocketed in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to over $400 million, ten times its level in 2008.

In the two-year 2012 election cycle, 132 wealthy Americans provided 60 percent of the Super PAC money raised. That number will go up in 2014. If it goes up to say 3,000, the funders of these Super PACs will still represent only a tiny minority of the 300 million Americans.

Super PACs have become the primary vehicle through which the wealthy elite exert political influence that overwhelms the common good and the voice of the vast majority of the people. That’s the “democracy” we have now – a political system that has corrupted the intended representative democracy spelled out in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.

Super PACS are just the latest, but certainly the most toxic, in a trend of increasing spending and influence by wealthy special interests in our political system. As they learn to effectively coordinate campaigns without technically coordinating (because that would be illegal), they are becoming a critical component of any effective political campaign. Candidates quickly learn the dance that assures that funding gets directed to the Super PACs that support them. However, there is, in effect, no accountability for the statements or actions of these Super PACs, as the candidates can claim a lack of knowledge and control of their actions.

The single greatest fear of any candidate, particularly any incumbent, is that thirty days before an election, some anonymously-funded Super PAC will spend $1 million against him or her. Therefore, candidates work to ensure that a Super PAC will be there to support them if needed. Candidates will position themselves as the kind of elected official a Super PAC wants to support and protect from a last minute assault.

My next post will discuss the growing presence of secret donors and “dark” money in our political campaigns because of Super PACs that do not disclose their donors. I’ll also review the increasing ability of wealthy donors to contribute large sums directly to candidates’ campaigns and the impact that all of this big money in our politics has on who runs for office. Then, I’ll present solutions to this corruption of our democracy, in addition to the MAYDAY Super PAC strategy, which I described in my previous post on 6/10/14.

[1] Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58 (This blog post is, in large part, a summarized excerpt from this article.)

A SUPER PAC TO END SUPER PACs – YOU CAN HELP!

ABSTRACT: We need to elect US Senators, Representatives, and ultimately a President who will support an end to Super PACs and unlimited money in our political campaigns. Lawrence Lessig is undertaking an innovative and counter-intuitive strategy to do so: creating a Super PAC to elect Congress people who will support the needed changes in our campaign financing laws. Lessig and his organization, Rootstrikers (http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/), have developed a well thought out plan to do this, and you can be part of it.

In the 2014 elections, they plan to target a small number of races with the goal of winning at least 5 of them – if they can raise the $12 million needed to fund their plan. The plan raises half of the $12 million using a crowd-funded, kickstarter-type approach. Lessig has pledged to find a match for the $6 million raised through crowd-funding. The initial campaign was launched on May 1. In thirteen days, the targeted $1 million was raised, with 13,000 contributors giving an average of $87 per contribution. In June, the second round was launched with the goal of raising the other $5 million by July 4.

For more information and to participate in this effort, please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old). If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_.

FULL POST: We need to elect US Senators, Representatives, and ultimately a President who will support an end to Super PACs and unlimited money in our political campaigns. However, this seems like a Catch-22 because these elected officials have been successful using the current system. For any candidate to single-handedly fight the current system is like unilateral disarmament; it’s essentially guaranteed to be a losing strategy.

So how do we solve this conundrum? Harvard Law School Professor and campaign reform advocate, Lawrence Lessig [1], is undertaking an innovative and counter-intuitive strategy: creating a Super PAC to elect Congress people who will support the needed changes in our campaign financing laws.

Lessig and his organization, Rootstrikers (http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/), have developed a well thought out plan to do this [2], and you can be part of it.They are creating a Super PAC to literally end Super PACs. In the 2014 elections, they plan to target a small number of races with the goal of winning at least 5 of them – if they can raise the $12 million needed to fund their plan. This would allow them to learn what it takes to win campaigns and, second, by winning, to convince others to take this effort seriously. Then, they plan to undertake a much larger effort in 2016.

The plan raises half of the $12 million using a crowd-funded, kickstarter-type approach. The money will be raised in two stages – first, by raising $1 million in thirty days, and then, if that goal is met, raising another $5 million in the next thirty days. Lessig has pledged to find a match for the $6 million raised through crowd-funding, so that by July 4 the Super PAC would have the $12 million needed for the targeted 2014 campaigns.

The initial campaign was launched on May 1. This is “May Day,” which evokes the distress call, “MAYDAY,” and provides the name of the Super PAC: the MAYDAY PAC. In thirteen days, the targeted $1 million was raised, with 13,000 contributors giving an average of $87 per contribution. (I contributed $25.) In June, the second round was launched with the goal of raising the other $5 million by July 4. If that’s successful and the additional matches are found, the campaign will be kicked off with a goal of winning at least five races in 2014. This will build the momentum needed for a much bigger Super PAC and campaign in 2016. [3]

For more information and to participate in this effort, please go to the MAYDAY Super PAC site (https://mayday.us/old). If you’d like to make a contribution or pledge to this effort, you can do so through my pledge page at: https://my.mayday.us/t/35e1-John-Lippitt#_=_.

I do believe that our campaign financing system is at the root of the problems of our democracy and our society. I’ll share more information about the current state of our campaign finance system and background on this MAYDAY effort in subsequent posts. You can find past posts on this topic by clicking on the Campaigns: Financing & Voting category in the right sidebar of my blog (below the list of recent posts, the monthly archives, and the FOLLOW button).

[1] For more information about Lawrence Lessig, see http://www.lessig.org/about/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig.

[2] Listen to Lessig’s 14 minute TED talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_walk_to_political_reform?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+TEDTalks_video+(TEDTalks+Main+(SD)+-+Site)&utm_content=TED+talks&utm_term=NTechMedia.

[3] Lessig, L., 6//4/14, “What’s so bad about a Super PAC?” https://medium.com/law-of-the-land/whats-so-bad-about-a-superpac-c7cbcf617b58 (This blog post is a summarized excerpt from this article.)

FIND A CRISIS, DEMAND PRIVATIZATION

ABSTRACT: Republicans are up to their old tricks: create a crisis at a public agency and then claim that privatization is the answer. The latest example is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Congress hasn’t provided sufficient funding to serve the 1.5 million new veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When US Senate legislation proposed 27 new VA health facilities (a 2% increase) and authorized hiring additional doctors and nurses back in February, the Republicans filibustered it, obstructing progress. Now that the lack of capacity has come to public attention, the Republicans are claiming that privatization is the answer.

Most veterans give high ratings to the care they get from the VA and are opposed to privatization. The VA system is actually a model from which our private health care system could learn a lot.

Using a real, created, or perceived crisis as an excuse to allow inefficient corporate takeovers of societal functions best suited to provision by a public entity puts corporate profits ahead of the public good. Such privatization through “crisis” is a disingenuous tactic used by ideologues who want to shrink government and expand corporate profits regardless of whether or not it’s in the best interests of citizens and taxpayers.

FULL POST: Republicans are up to their old tricks: create a crisis at a public agency and then claim that privatization is the answer. Sometimes the crisis is real, sometimes it is manufactured, and sometimes it’s a perception created by a public relations campaign. However, the answer is always the same: privatize the agency because the “crisis” proves that the public sector can’t do the job.

The latest example is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The cover-up of the waiting list for needed care in the VA’s Phoenix office is unforgiveable. But why was the agency unable to deliver timely care? Is it because doctors, nurses, and others were sitting around with their feet up doing nothing? Or is it because of a lack of capacity to provide the needed care? I’m willing to bet it’s the latter.

Congress hasn’t provided sufficient funding to serve the 1.5 million new veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many of these veterans have injuries, including traumatic body and brain injuries, that would have killed them on the battlefield in the past. However, our improved medical capabilities on the battlefield have saved their lives, but returned them home with significant health care needs. Mental health needs have grown as well.

However, when US Senate legislation proposed 27 new VA health facilities (a 2% increase) and authorized hiring additional doctors and nurses back in February, the Republicans filibustered it, obstructing progress on expanding needed health services for our veterans.

Now that the lack of capacity has come to public attention, the Republicans are claiming that privatization is the answer. Should we turn health care of our veterans over to the health care system that increases its profits by finding ways to deny coverage and care? Interestingly, most veterans give high ratings to the care they get from the VA and are opposed to privatization. The VA has unmatched expertise in traumatic brain injury, amputee care, and other combat-related health issues and it serves rural areas where private sector care is scarce. [1] It computerized medical records and undertook quality of care initiatives long before the private sector. The VA system is actually a model from which our private health care system could learn a lot. [2]

This political tactic of using a “crisis” to push for privatization is one that Republicans have used with Social Security, the US Postal Service, the public school system, road and bridge building and maintenance, the prison system, and so on. Conservatives in Canada have used the tactic as well to attack their postal service and their universal public health care system. [3] Using a real, created, or perceived crisis as an excuse to allow inefficient corporate takeovers of societal functions best suited to provision by a public entity puts corporate profits ahead of the public good.

Privatization of the VA is not good for our veterans or taxpayers. Such privatization through “crisis” is a disingenuous tactic used by ideologues who want to shrink government and expand corporate profits regardless of whether or not it’s in the best interests of citizens and taxpayers. [4]

[1] Weisman, J., 5/30/14, “VA scandal forces Congress to study systemic change,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[2] Gordon, S. 5/27/14, “Privatization won’t fix the VA,” The Boston Globe

[3] Taliano, M., 5/16/14, “Privatization is the problem, not the solution,” Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/05/16-7

[4] See my previous posts on privatization, especially the ones of 10/23/12 and 10/16/12, for more detail on the shortcomings of privatization.