The disclosure of who is giving money to candidates for public office has long been a basic tenet of our elections. Even with the rise of outside spending, (supposedly) independent of candidates’ campaigns, disclosure of donors was assumed. In the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision (which ruled that wealthy individuals, corporations, and other organizations could engage in unlimited outside spending), the five justices who supported the ruling believed that the independence of the spending and the disclosure of the donors would prevent corruption of candidates who benefitted from the unlimited campaign spending.

However, wealthy individual and corporate campaign donors are typically anxious to hide their identities. This protects them from negative repercussions from, for example, sponsoring TV ads that are typically negative and sometimes outright nasty or untruthful.

As a result, “dark” money spending in campaigns, where the true donors are hidden, is growing dramatically. Dark money in the 2016 elections is up 34% over this point in the 2014 Congressional elections and is 5 times what it was at this point in the last presidential election in 2012. [1] Donor secrecy means there is no accountability, typically for negative or questionably truthful TV ads. It also prevents voters from knowing who is behind the political ads and messages that are trying to influence their votes. This means voters can’t assess the interests and biases of the sponsors of the ads, or even tell if there are conflicts of interest or a potential for corruption.

Large donors have found multiple ways to keep their identities secret. The two main strategies are engaging in political activity through non-profit organizations that don’t have to disclose their donors and laundering money through multiple entities to make it hard (if not impossible) to trace the actual donor. These strategies come on top of the fact that enforcement of existing disclosure laws has been weak at best. The Federal Election Commission (FEC), the primary enforcer of election laws, is hamstrung by the intense partisanship in Washington.

As required by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, the non-profit organizations that are being used for political activity maintain that political activity is not their primary purpose. However, for many of them, this fiction can only be maintained because the IRS’s regulations and enforcement are weak. The IRS’s efforts in this area have been undermined by political attacks, including claims that its efforts to control the illegal political use of non-profit groups reflect partisan bias.

The other major strategy for hiding the identities of donors is money laundering. This is accomplished by passing money for political spending through a series of groups, typically non-profits and super PACs. When the final entity that actually engages in political activity (e.g., pays for the TV ads) reports its donors, they are super PACs and non-profits not the actual original donors.

Some of the campaign money laundering is done through “ghost” organizations. These are typically corporations that are established solely for the purpose of channeling money to super PACs. Many of these ghost corporations make large donations, e.g., hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, only days after they are created. Little information is available about them and sometimes they are disbanded shortly after making their donations. Hence, tracing the donors of this money is extremely difficult if not impossible. [2]

Many election law experts consider the use of ghost organizations a violation of the long-standing federal ban on straw donors, i.e., one person giving money to another person or entity to use to make a political contribution. However, with the regulatory agencies, particularly the FEC, politically deadlocked, enforcement and even investigation of such activity is lacking.

The explosion of campaign spending where donors are secret is particularly insidious and damaging to democracy. Voters are not be able to consider the credibility and motives of the funders behind these efforts to sway their votes. Moreover, the megaphone that unlimited outside money provides to wealthy corporations and individuals can drown out other voices that provide important information to voters.

Unlimited election spending by a tiny slice of our society, coupled with secrecy about who is paying for the messages being disseminated, means that voters will receive skewed information and will be unable to evaluate its credibility. Furthermore, they may be discouraged from voting because the bulk of these messages tend to be negative messages that attack the quality of candidates and the effectiveness of our government.

To support well informed voting, full disclosure of all donors to campaign spending is essential. Furthermore, unlimited spending by wealthy interests in our elections undermines the basic principle of democracy – that government is of, by, and for all the people.

My next post will provide more information on how wealthy campaign donors are maintaining their secrecy and what you can do about it.

[1]       OpenSecrets.org, retrieved 10/22/16, “Top election spenders: Who are the biggest dark money spenders?” Center for Responsive Politics (https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/top-election-spenders)

[2]       Gold, M. & Narayanswamy, A., 3/18/16, “How ‘ghost corporations’ are funding the 2016 election,” The Washington Post

Big money may have a bigger effect on state and local elections than federal ones. Most of my past posts on campaign finance have focused on spending on races for federal offices (here, here, here, and here). However, state and local races are less expensive and get less media attention, so some big money can have a really big impact. I have written about this before (here). Here are a couple more examples of big money’s role at the state and local level.

Missouri is one of the few states with no limits on campaign contributions directly to candidates. There are four candidates in the Republican primary for Governor. Each of the four has received over $1 million from a single source. One campaign has received almost $5 million from the candidate’s own fortune. In two cases, an individual or family (other than the candidate) has given a million or more to the gubernatorial candidate while also giving millions more to other candidates or political action committees (PACs). [1]

This big money is drowning out the voices of the average voter. It creates conflicts of interest for the candidate who is elected as these large donors have interests that are affected by policy decisions. One of the Missouri million-dollar donors is a strong advocate for repealing all Missouri taxes. He would clearly disproportionately benefit from steps in that direction while the average Missouri resident would suffer the loss of the government’s ability to support infrastructure and programming. Another of the million-dollar donors is a strong opponent of unions. Policies that weaken unions would benefit him as a business owner while hurting workers.

In the Washington, D.C., mayor’s race, the amounts aren’t as dramatic, but campaign donors of $1,000 or more are providing the bulk of campaign money. These large donors are not representative of the electorate; they are disproportionately white and male, and, of course, rich. Overall, for the three candidates in the 2014 race, two-thirds of all the money raised came from donors giving $1,000 or more. Less than 2% came from donors giving $50 or less – an amount that might be affordable for the average voter. [2]

While only 37% of D.C.’s population is white, 62% of donors to the mayoral race were white. In terms of gender, 69% of those giving more than $1,000 were male, although 54% of D.C.’s adults are women.

After the election, the winner created a PAC that took advantage of a loophole in election laws that allowed unlimited donations in non-election years. This Mayor’s PAC took in many $10,000 contributions, many from those with interests in policy and contracting decisions made by the city. An investigation into the PAC found that 11 of its largest donors received $70 million in city contracts.

Big campaign contributions by wealthy donors result in decisions and policies that disproportionately favor the white, male, wealthy, donor class. For example, Washington, D.C., has enacted a series of tax cuts, including a cut in the estate tax, that will largely benefit the wealthy, despite the city’s high poverty rate (18%) and high income inequality. The city also recently announced it will spend $55 million to build a new practice facility for the Washington Wizards basketball team. The wealthy team owner will contribute only $5 million to construction costs and an additional $10 million for community benefits. The city also gave $60 million in tax breaks to a consulting company to keep it from moving to Virginia. The company promised to hire 1,000 D.C. residents, but these jobs likely would have gone to D.C. residents in any case.

Big money is invading state and local elections as well as federal elections. It can have greater effects on the elections at the state and local levels due to smaller campaign spending and less media coverage. And its effects on government decisions and policies can be more immediate and easier to identify.

Subsequent posts will look at the invasion of secret money (where the true donor is obscured) into state and local campaigns. They will also present ways to address the problems of big and secret money in our elections within the constraints of current Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Citizens United and McCutcheon).

[1]       Miller, J., 7/20/16, “This is what happens when a state has no contribution limits,” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/blog/checks/what-happens-when-state-has-no-contribution-limits)

[2]       McElwee, S., 6/23/16, “D.C.’s white donor class: Outsized influence in a diverse city,” Demos (http://www.demos.org/publication/dc%E2%80%99s-white-donor-class-outsized-influence-diverse-city)

ABSTRACT: Dark money organizations – non-profit, tax exempt groups that do not have to disclose their donors – are spending tens of millions of dollars every year in our election campaigns. This means that when voters go to vote they don’t know who paid for the dark money funded ads, mailings, and other political activity that has tried to influence their voting.

Seventy-five percent of the public, including equal shares of Republicans and Democrats, believe that contributors should be disclosed. There are multiple ways to address the problem of large amounts of anonymous, dark money being spent in our election campaigns:

• Pass a federal Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United and related Supreme Court decisions that allow unlimited spending in our election campaigns
• Require clear and timely disclosure of donors to dark money organizations
• Implement a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule requiring corporations to disclose their political spending
• Strengthen IRS regulation of non-profit, tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activity
• Strengthen Federal Election Commission requirements for disclosure of political spending

In a democracy, voters have a right and a need to know who is trying to influence their votes and who is supporting or opposing candidates for office. Therefore, clear and timely disclosure of the sources of funds for political activity is essential.

FULL POST: In my last post, I discussed the increasing significance dark money organizations – non-profit, tax exempt groups that do not have to disclose their donors – are playing in our election campaigns and politics at the federal, state, and even local levels. They are spending tens of millions of dollars every year, which will probably grow to over $100 million in the 2016 presidential campaign.

This means that when voters go to vote they don’t know who paid for the dark money funded ads, mailings, and other political activity that has tried to influence their voting. Therefore, they aren’t able to make an informed judgment about the interests or purposes behind these political messages.

Seventy-five percent of the public, including equal shares of Republicans and Democrats, believe that contributors should be disclosed. Even Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, in the majority opinion in the Citizens United case [1] that allows unlimited corporate spending in our elections, wrote that “disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech [i.e., spending] of corporate entities in a proper way.”

There are multiple ways to address the problem of large amounts of anonymous, dark money being spent in our election campaigns. [2] Ultimately, I believe we need a federal Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and related Supreme Court decisions. Such amendment would state that 1) The rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution are the rights of human beings only and not of corporations or other organizations, and 2) Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and spending to ensure that our elections are fair and that all citizens can participate and have their voices heard in a reasonably equitable manner.

Given that a Constitutional amendment will not happen quickly, there are a number of steps that could and should be taken in the short-term:

• Require clear and timely disclosure of donors to dark money organizations through federal and state laws and executive action by the President.
• Implement a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule requiring corporations to disclose their political spending.
• Strengthen Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation of non-profit, tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activity.
• Strengthen Federal Election Commission requirements for disclosure of political spending.

Shortly after the Citizens United ruling in 2010, Congress considered the DISCLOSE Act that would have mandated disclosure and reporting of all spending in federal election campaigns. The bill passed the House but failed by one vote to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. [3] Congress should consider this legislation again in light of the tremendous growth of dark money spending and it should pass the bill this time. States should pass similar legislation to cover state and local elections.

In the meantime, President Obama should sign an Executive Order requiring all federal contractors to disclose their political spending. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should act expeditiously to implement a proposed disclosure rule. It would require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending. Given the SEC’s mission of protecting shareholders through corporate accountability and transparency, such a rule would be very appropriate. [4]

Along the same lines, in 2013, after years of development, the IRS proposed a rule for non-profit, tax exempt organizations that defined political activity and required timely reporting of donors. The goal was to increase transparency so voters in the 2016 elections would know who was paying for political ads and other campaign activity before entering the voting booth. There was lots of pushback over the proposed rule. Conservative advocacy groups and their supporters in Congress went so far as to manufacture a crisis surrounding the IRS’s oversight of such organizations to pressure the IRS into delaying the transparency rule and to discredit the IRS’s efforts to regulate dark money. [5]

Finally, the other entity that could and should require disclosure of the sources of campaign spending, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), is effectively paralyzed. Its members are required to be split equally between Democrats and Republicans and must be confirmed by the Senate. With a politicized confirmation process in the Senate and the current hyper-partisanship in Congress filtering down to FEC members, the FEC is gridlocked and basically unable to function.

In a democracy, voters have a right and a need to know who is trying to influence their votes and who is supporting or opposing candidates for office. Therefore, clear and timely disclosure of the sources of funds for political activity is essential. I urge you to let your elected officials and candidates for office at all levels know that you support disclosure of the sources of political spending so you can be an informed voter.

[1]       In Citizens United and related decisions the Supreme Court ruled that individuals and organizations can spend unlimited amounts of money in our election campaigns. Therefore, these dark money organizations can accept unlimited donations and spend unlimited sums. Specifically, the Court ruled that corporations and other organizations are people and have the same first amendment rights of free speech as actual human beings under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. The rulings also said that spending money in elections (and elsewhere) is speech and is protected by freedom of speech rights.

[2]       People for the American Way and coalition partners, July 2015, “Fighting big money, empowering people: A 21^st century democracy agenda,” (http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/PresidentialPolicy831.pdf)

[3]       Kuns, K., 7/1/15, “The dark politics of dark money,” The Washington Spectator

[4]       U.S. PIRG, 10/12/15, “Members of Senate Banking Committee, former SEC Commissioner urge SEC nominees to support political disclosure rule,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/10/21/members-senate-banking-committee-former-sec-commissioner-urge-sec-nominees)

[5]       Kuns, K., 7/1/15, see above

ABSTRACT: The fastest growing and perhaps the most troublesome of the four main avenues for presidential campaign fundraising and spending are the “dark money” organizations. These are non-profit organizations that can accept unlimited amounts of money and keep their donors secret. They are social-welfare groups that are supposed to work exclusively to further the common good and general welfare. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has interpreted “exclusively” to mean “more than 50%,” which still means that political activity shouldn’t be their primary purpose. In addition, an IRS rule prohibits social-welfare organizations from benefiting a single individual.

Some of the politically active social-welfare organizations have pushed against these limitations. In the 2014 congressional elections, dark money expenditures grew tremendously. Because of the lack of oversight and enforcement by either the IRS or the Federal Election Commission (FEC), dark money organizations started ignoring operating rules and reporting requirements. In the 2016 presidential race, single-candidate dark money organizations have surfaced that seem to violate the IRS’s single individual rule. Dark money organizations have also been active at the state and local levels.

Allowing secret donors to pay for millions of dollars of campaign spending means that voters cannot make informed decisions and raises the specter of serious corruption. Without timely disclosure of donors, our democracy cannot have the informed electorate that is essential to its effective functioning.

FULL POST: The fastest growing and perhaps the most troublesome of the four main avenues for presidential campaign fundraising and spending are the “dark money” organizations. [1] These are non-profit organizations that can accept unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations. However, unlike Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, they can keep their donors secret, hence their money is “dark money.” Like PACs and Super PACs, they are supposed to operate independently of candidates’ official campaign committees.

In exchange for their non-profit, tax-exempt status, these social-welfare groups are supposed to work exclusively to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has interpreted “exclusively” to mean that “more than 50%” of an organization’s activities have to be for social-welfare purposes. [2] [3] Therefore, political activity shouldn’t be the primary purpose of these organizations, which are registered under sections 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of the IRS Code. In addition, an IRS rule prohibits social-welfare organizations from benefiting a single individual – the so-called “private benefit” rule. However, the IRS has been lax in defining political activity and in enforcing the focus on a social-welfare purpose and the private benefit rule.

Some of the politically active social-welfare organizations have pushed back against these limitations. Given the lack of enforcement from the IRS, some of them are basically ignoring operating rules and reporting requirements. In addition, some of these organizations have laundered their contributions through other entities to complicate any attempts to identify actual donors.

In the 2014 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina, a social-welfare organization called Carolina Rising, spent 97% of the $4.9 million it raised helping Thom Tillis win the seat. It received $4.8 million from a single donor whom it did not, and did not have to, disclose. The organization had no employees and spent $4.7 million through a single advertising firm for TV and cable ads. Because some of these ads aired close to the election in a time window that requires reporting to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Carolina Rising reported $3.3 million in election spending to the FEC. The contracts it signed with the TV and cable companies airing its ads, which are filed with the Federal Communications Commission, identified the ads as pro-Tillis. However, it reported to the IRS that it had conducted no political activity. Carolina Rising would appear to have clearly violated the IRS rules on benefiting a single individual and on political activity having to be less than 50% of a social-welfare organization’s activity. Furthermore, it may well have knowingly lied to the IRS in stating it had not engaged in political activity. [4]

In the 2016 presidential race, single-candidate dark money organizations have surfaced. At least four Republican presidential candidates have dedicated dark money organizations, although they would appear to violate the IRS’s single individual rule. [5]

A dark money organization, the Conservative Solutions Project, is spending heavily on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio. So far, every Rubio TV ad in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, as well as mailings to voters in those states, has been paid for by this dark money, non-profit organization. After spending $3 million over the summer promoting Rubio, it was spending almost $1 million a week in late September and early October on pro-Rubio TV ads. [6] Supposedly, it is doing all of this totally independently of the Rubio campaign.

There are plenty of examples of politically active social-welfare nonprofits flouting rules and reporting. And dark money organizations have been active at the state and local levels as well as at the national level. For example, they have opposed California ballot initiatives and blocked the start-up of a new bus line in Nashville, Tennessee, that would have linked poorer, gentrifying neighborhoods with downtown and wealthier, upscale neighborhoods. [7]

Allowing secret donors to pay for millions of dollars of campaign spending means that voters cannot make informed decisions and raises the specter of serious corruption. Without timely disclosure of political donors, our democracy cannot have the informed electorate that is essential to its effective functioning.

My next post will discuss ways of addressing this lack of disclosure of major donors to election spending.

[1]       See my previous post, Big money for the presidential candidates, for information on the other 3 avenues for campaign fundraising and spending.

[2]       Kuns, K., 7/1/15, “The dark politics of dark money,” The Washington Spectator

[3]       Bykowicz, J., 10/8/15, “Rubio’s presidential bid boosted by secret-money commercials,” The Associated Press (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5926406673b047a7a34f1177e01014da/anonymous-donors-send-millions-pro-rubio-group)

[4]       Maguire, R., 10/20/15, “Political nonprofit spent nearly 100 percent of funds to elect Tillis in ’14,” Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/10/political-nonprofit-spent-nearly-100-percent-of-funds-to-elect-tillis-in-14/)

[5]       Maguire, R., & Tucker, W., 9/21/15, “Five-fold upsurge: Super PACs, dark money groups spending far more than in ’12 cycle at the same point in campaign,” Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/09/five-fold-upsurge-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-spending-far-more-than-in-12-cycle-at-same-point-in-campaign/)

[6]       Bykowicz, J., 10/8/15, see above

[7]       Kranish, M., 10/11/15, “A city’s immovable roadblock,” The Boston Globe

ABSTRACT: Tracking the tons of money already flowing into the 2016 presidential campaign is not easy. There are four main avenues for presidential campaign fundraising and spending today, when as recently as 2008 there was really only one major one – the candidate’s official campaign committee. A candidate’s official committee is limited to donations from individuals of up to $2,700.

Super Political Action Committees (PACs) are one of the new fundraising vehicles. They can accept unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, and other entities. As-of June 30, single-candidate, presidential Super PACs had raised $258 million. This is 16 times the amount such Super PACs had raised at this point in the last presidential campaign. And it is double the amount raised by the official campaign committees.

Fewer than 400 families have given almost half of the $388 million raised by the presidential candidates’ campaigns and Super PACs. While 48,000 Americans have donated $130 million to the presidential candidates’ campaigns, just 65 donors have given an equal amount – $132 million – to the candidates’ Super PACs. Having a wealthy backer or a few, makes a candidate viable today when in the past they wouldn’t have made it to the starting gate.

What all this means is that a small number of the wealthiest people in the US are exercising enormous influence over who our presidential candidates are and what policies they espouse. The rest of us are sitting on the sidelines watching and wondering if our votes or voices matter – and whether our country is still a democracy or not.

FULL POST: Tracking the tons of money already flowing into the 2016 presidential campaign is not easy. Court decisions, creative campaign lawyers, and lax enforcement have all contributed to opening up new avenues for campaign fundraising and making it impossible in some cases to identify the source of the money.

There are four main avenues for presidential campaign fundraising and spending today, when as recently as 2008 there was really only one major one – the candidate’s official campaign committee. [1] Today we have:

1. Candidates’ official campaign committees – limited to donations from individuals of up to $2,700. Have to disclose donors of over $250.
2. Candidate-specific Super Political Action Committees (PACs) – unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, and other entities. Have to disclose donors.
3. Other PACs and Super PACs – some can receive unlimited donations from a wide variety of entities; others are limited. Have to disclose donors.
4. “Dark money” organizations, usually not-for-profit entities – unlimited donations from a wide variety of entities. Do not have to disclose donors.

While any viable presidential candidate today must raise staggering amounts of money, different candidates have different patterns in their fundraising. For example, the Clinton and Sanders campaigns recently reported raising similar amounts of money over the last 3 months, $28 million and $26 million respectively. However, Clinton raised $19 million, roughly two-thirds of her money, through 60 fundraising events where the typical contribution was $2,700. Sanders has held only 7 fundraising events throughout the entire campaign and they typically cost $100 to attend. The bulk of his money came from online contributions where the average contribution was $30 and 99% of his contributions were $100 or less. [2] [3]

The use of candidate-specific Super PACs also varies. While they are supposed to operate independently of the candidate’s official campaign, in reality their operations are complementary if not actually coordinated, so analysis of a candidate’s campaign’s financial status typically combines figures for the candidate’s campaign and his or her Super PAC(s). These Super PACs, while technically barred from coordinating tactics and plans with the official campaign, are increasingly paying for core costs of a campaign, including, for example, the candidate’s travel, polling, and, of course, advertising. Furthermore, candidates are often directly involved with their Super PACs’ fundraising. The Super PACs have effectively eviscerated laws on contribution limits that were put in place to prevent bribery and corruption. [4]

Official data are available on the campaigns’ fundraising through June 30. At that point, the single-candidate, presidential Super PACs had raised $258 million. This is 16 times the amount such Super PACs had raised at this point in the last presidential campaign. And it is double the amount raised by the campaigns themselves. [5] Four of the top 7 candidates in terms of fundraising had raised more money through their Super PACs than through their campaigns, while one had raised no Super PAC money and another had essentially only raised Super PAC money: [6]

• Jeb Bush:                Total raised: $115 million             Super PAC: $103 m          Campaign: $11 m
• Hillary Clinton:     Total raised:  $68 million             Super PAC: $20 m            Campaign: $48 m
• Ted Cruz:                Total raised: $53 million              Super PAC:   $39 m           Campaign: $14 m
• Marco Rubio:         Total raised: $27 million              Super PAC:   $17 m           Campaign: $10 m
• Ben Carson:            Total raised: $17 million              Super PAC:   $7 m             Campaign: $11 m
• Bernie Sanders:     Total raised:   $16 million            Super PAC:   $0 m            Campaign: $16 m
• Chris Christie:        Total raised: $14 million             Super PAC:   $14 m           Campaign:  $0 m

Fewer than 400 families have given almost half of the $388 million raised by the presidential candidates’ campaigns and Super PACs. Much of the Super PAC money is coming from a small handful of individuals and families. While 48,000 Americans have donated $130 million to the presidential candidates’ campaigns, just 65 donors have given an equal amount – $132 million – to the candidates’ Super PACs. These wealthy contributors not only have great access to the candidates they support, they are often confidantes and sometimes have business dealings with the candidates or entities that the candidates run. Having a wealthy backer or a few, makes a candidate viable today when in the past they wouldn’t have made it to the starting gate. [7] For example:

Cruz: 6 people, 4 individuals from one family and 2 other individuals, have contributed the $36 million his Super PACs have received. Under our previous campaign laws, it would have required over 13,000 individuals giving the maximum $2,700 to raise this much money.

Rubio: 4 donors have contributed $12.5 million.

Mike Huckabee: 1 individual gave $3 million.

Bush: 26 individuals or corporations have given over $1 million each.

Clinton: 9 individuals have contributed over $1 million each.

Rand Paul: 2 individuals have given a combined $3 million.

What all this means is that a small number of the wealthiest people in the US are exercising enormous influence over who our presidential candidates are and what policies they espouse. The rest of us – 300 million Americans – are sitting on the sidelines watching and wondering if our votes or voices matter – and whether our country is still a democracy or not. [8]

To put the current presidential campaign’s fundraising in some perspective, the $388 million raised by the presidential candidates’ campaigns and Super PACs already – over a year before the final election – is more than the $331 million that Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and their rivals spent in the whole 1992 election. And it is almost 5 times the amount that had been raised at this point in the 2012 presidential campaign. In the 2016 presidential election, spending will be over 20 times what it was just 24 years ago in the 1992 election.

[1]       Pindell, J., 10/1/15, “Evaluating campaign money reports gets more complicated,” The Boston Globe

[2]       Campaign Notebook, 10/2/15, “Sander’s war chest fills fast,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3]       Bykowicz, J., 9/30/15, “Clinton, Bush steady fundraising amid GOP summer Trump slump,” Associated Press

[4]       Confessore, N., Cohen, S., & Yourish, K., 8/1/15, “Small pool of rich donors dominates election giving,” The New York Times

[5]       Kranish, M., 9/13/15, “In national politics, big money drowning out everyone else,” The Boston Globe

[6]       OpenSecrets.org, 10/4/15, “Behind the candidates: campaign committees and outside groups,” Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised_summ.php)

[7]       Confessore, et al., 8/1/15, see above

[8]       Kranish, M., 9/13/15, see above

ABSTRACT: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. A wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle.  (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling.” Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate.

Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens. Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy.

FULL POST: The political money and influence of the wealthy grows and grows. Wealthy donors making large contributions of up to $2,600 directly to Congressional candidates’ campaigns represent the great majority of candidates’ funding. Candidates for Congress raise only about 11% of their campaign contributions from donors giving less than $200.

Beyond donations to candidates’ campaigns, wealthy individuals can also give up to $32,400 per year to a national political party. There had been an overall limit of $123,200 on the grand total any individual could contribute in a two-year federal election cycle. However, the Supreme Court just ruled that this limit is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech in its McCutcheon decision.

Although the limit on a contribution to any candidate’s campaign or to a party remains (for now, see below), a wealthy individual can now contribute roughly $3.6 million directly to candidates and parties in every 2-year election cycle. [1] Through joint fundraisers and committees, wealthy contributors will now be solicited to write a single check for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars or more. (This is in addition to the unlimited money they can spend on campaign advocacy outside of candidates’ campaign accounts based on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010.)

A court challenge to the contribution limit on donations to party committees has been filed by the Republican National Committee [2] and a challenge to the limit on contributions to individual candidates’ campaigns is likely. If successful, these challenges would allow wealthy individuals, and perhaps corporations, to give unlimited amounts of money directly to political candidates and parties.

Furthermore, a donor can gather checks from colleagues and friends and present them to the candidate along with his or her own check. This is a practice known as “bundling,” and the donor’s sway with the candidate is, of course, enhanced by delivering these large sums to the candidate’s campaign. Often these bundlers pledge to raise $100,000 or more for a candidate – far beyond the individual limit of $2,600.

Imagine you’re a candidate running for political office. You can either try to raise $100,000 from a thousand people in $100 contributions (a big contribution for most people), or you can try to raise $100,000 from 40 wealthy individuals or via one bundler. Candidates spend 30% to 70% of their time raising money. If they can raise money in bigger chunks, they will. Therefore, candidates focus on the few big “funders” of campaigns, because with each big catch they can cover much more of their campaign costs. [3] These big contributors, now more than ever, will be national figures, not ones with any connection to a candidate’s district or state.

Edwin Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics notes that “contribution limits play a crucial role in … increasing the participation rate by small-dollar donors.” [4] So as the Supreme Court eliminates contribution limits as unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech, the candidates focus on fewer and fewer donors who contribute larger and larger amounts. These big contributors or bundlers have more than an adequate incentive to contribute because it ensures that candidates hear their particular views  – about regulation, government spending, limits on lawsuits, trade, workers’ protections, intellectual property right s, or whatever – and that candidates have an incentive to support big contributors’ views when policy is made.

In a recent study from Princeton (the largest empirical analysis of government policy decision making to-date), Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial … impacts on U.S. governmental policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no … influence.” [5]

With candidates dependent on big contributors for the money necessary to run a competitive campaign, it’s not surprising that policies reflect the interests of these contributors and not the average citizen. The result is that our “democracy” is not representing us – the average voter – and therefore is not working as our founders intended. What we have here in the US is increasingly a plutocracy: government dominated by the small minority that are the wealthiest citizens.

Coming up in my next post: strategies for reforming our system of financing campaigns to reclaim our democracy by making our elected officials beholden to us. As a result, they would have incentives to represent us instead of wealthy individuals and corporations.

[1]       Lee, C., 5/5/14, “The fatter the wallet, the louder the voice,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/fatter-wallet-louder-voice)

[2]       Money in Politics Newsletter, 5/29/14, “The aftermath of McCutcheon v. FEC,” Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/newsletter/money-politics-newsletter-mccutcheons-aftermath-primary-fundraising)

[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

[4]       Bender, E., 5/13/13, “Evidencing a republican form of government: The influence of campaign money on state-level elections,” Montana Law Review (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/Evidencing_a_Republican_Form_of_Government.pdf)

[5]       Gilens, M., & Page, B., 4/9/14, “Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens,” (http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf)

ABSTRACT: Huge contributions and expenditures from wealthy special interests were front and center in the 2012 campaigns because of the unlimited spending allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The 32 biggest donors to Super PACs spent as much money as the total of all the donations by the 3.7 million Americans who made small donations to the Obama or Romney campaigns.

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) investigates and reports on money in campaigns. It has now documented a web of over a dozen organizations that transferred money among themselves to hide the true sources of campaign spending, so-called “dark money.” Dark money has been used in state, local, and national campaigns. Adding an international element to the dark money issue, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman illegally funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell corporations.

The amounts of money that candidates for Congress have to raise for their campaigns is staggering. A member of the US House needs to raise, on average, $15,000 each and every week; a Senator needs to raise $33,000 every week. Time spent fundraising is time that doesn’t get spent working on legislation or listening to and representing average constituents.

The dominance of money in campaigns, and of wealthy special interests in providing this money, skews the priorities and policy positions of elected officials. It corrupts the making of public policy. Reforms of our campaign finance system are needed and can be done now (within the context of the Supreme Court’s rulings) that:

• Amplify the voices of average citizens and their small contributions to campaigns,
• Require timely reporting of all campaign spending and contributions, and
• Severely limit political activity by tax exempt organizations.

FULL POST: Huge contributions and expenditures from wealthy special interests were front and center in the 2012 campaigns because of the unlimited spending allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Private watchdog groups are continuing to trace and expose the sources and convoluted paths of money going from wealthy donors to campaign spending. This both exposes the donors (who often wish to remain secret) and illustrates the need for reform. Here are a few examples of their extensive findings.

The 32 biggest donors to Super PACs spent as much money as the total of all the donations by the 3.7 million Americans who made small donations to the Obama or Romney campaigns. [1] The two Koch brothers, billionaires due to their oil and industrial corporations, spent at least $400 million on campaigns in 2012, which is more than John McCain’s entire presidential campaign spent in 2008. [2] And fewer than 300,000 individuals (one-tenth of one percent of the 300 million Americans) provided the majority, roughly 60%, of the money raised by Congressional candidates from individuals. [3]

The Open Secrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/) investigates and reports on money in campaigns. It has been digging into the money spent in the 2012 campaigns by Super PACs and social welfare groups (tax exempt 501(c)(4) organizations). It has now documented a web of over a dozen organizations that transferred money among themselves 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. It has also documented that at least one quarter of the so-called “dark money” – money where the source was hidden – was linked to the two Koch brothers. [4]

Dark money was used in state as well as national campaigns. In California, an $11 million campaign contribution of dark money by a non-profit, tax exempt organization opposing a tax increase sparked an inquiry by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a grand jury investigation into violations of campaign finance laws and money laundering. A judge forced the Americans for Responsible Leadership, the apparent source of the contribution, to reveal the original source of the money. The money had come from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, another Arizona non-profit, which received the money from Americans for Job Security, a Virginia non-profit. Both of these organizations are connected to the Koch brothers’ political money network. The organizations have agreed to disgorge the $11 million contribution and pay a record $1 million fine. The investigation also uncovered a separate $4.1 million illegal contribution that now will also be disgorged. California is working to improve disclosure of campaign contributions and strengthen laws and regulations to stop dark money activity. [5]

Dark money has arrived at the local level as well. In the recent Boston mayoral election, organizations independent of the candidates’ campaigns spent over $3.8 million, much of it dark money. This spending had a significant impact as it was more than two-thirds as much as the campaigns of the two finalists spent on their own ($5.4 million). As a result, Massachusetts elected officials are working on laws that would tighten regulation of campaign spending, and, in particular, require disclosure of all donors promptly, before the election, so voters would know who was responsible for the spending. [6][7]

Adding an international element to the dark money issue, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman illegally funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell corporations. This is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to spend money on U.S. elections. The allegations surrounding Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, the owner of multiple construction companies in Mexico, include bankrolling a handful of southern California candidates. The scandal involves a U.S. congressman, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm, and the consequences of the Citizens United decision. That decision, which gives corporations the right to funnel donations to US candidates, allowed Matsura to obscure the true source of the donations and, therefore, the citizenship of the donor. [8]

The amounts of money that candidates for Congress have to raise for their campaigns is staggering. In 2012, the average cost of a wining campaign for the House was over $1.6 million and over $10.4 million for the Senate. That means that a member of the House, who runs for re-election every two years, needs to raise, on average, $15,000 each and every week. And a Senator needs to raise, on average, $33,000 every week. Newly elected members of Congress are typically told to spend four hours each day raising money. Time spent fundraising is time that doesn’t get spent working on legislation or listening to and representing average constituents. [9]

The dominance of money in campaigns, and of wealthy special interests in providing this money, skews the priorities and policy positions of members of Congress, and other elected officials, to favor the wealthy and special interests over the common good. In other words, it corrupts the making of public policy. Democracy – government of, by, and for the people – is perverted by the current role of money in our political system, where big money drowns out the voices and overwhelms the interests of average citizens.

Reforms of our campaign finance system are needed and can be done now (within the context of the Supreme Court’s rulings) that:

• Amplify the voices of average citizens and their small contributions to campaigns;
• Require timely reporting of all campaign spending and contributions (including bundling), so that voters know before they vote where the money is coming from;
• Limit contributions that elected officials can receive from interests they oversee, from political committees, and from lobbyists;
• Prohibit fundraising by elected officials during normal working hours;
• Severely limit political activity by tax exempt organizations and require them to report donors; and
• Improve enforcement of existing campaign finance laws.