Wednesday, January 8, 2014

The Dark Knights



It all started with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. That ruling took the reins off campaign contributions from corporations, unions and other organizations – as long as these funds were not controlled by the candidates themselves – and allowed unlimited spending, some of it effectively anonymous (under current law). Next related issue on the court’s 2014 agenda is another case, McCutcheon vs. Federal Commission, which will decide whether aggregate campaign, committee and party contribution limits are constitutional.
Money flowed into the breach in the 2012 elections, but the most interesting aspect of these funds was the potential of anonymity. “Spending by nonprofit groups not disclosing their donors surged following the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that opened the door for unlimited corporate, union and, ultimately, individual spending on independent political efforts. The [Internal Revenue Code] 501(c)(4) nonprofit form became a preferred option for many as it gave anonymity to wealthy but publicity-shy donors.
“To maintain this donor anonymity, the nonprofits must spend more than half of their time and budget each year on nonpolitical efforts in pursuit of their declared tax-exempt purpose. Issue ads in which a candidate is named -- but the public is not explicitly urged to vote for or against said candidate – are often used by these groups to achieve their official purpose. The very same candidates are often targeted with more direct electoral appeals closer to the election.” Huffington Post, January 4th.
But this segment of political financial support has accelerated in 2013 well-beyond anyone’s expectations. 2013 wasn’t even a major election year! “[D]ata collected by the Sunlight Foundation found that dark money groups have dropped at least $24.6 million on issue ads naming specific candidates on television, radio and online video since January 2013. That's seven times the $3.5 million these groups spent on campaign activities reported to the Federal Election Commission over the same period.” Huffington Post. Hmmmm, issues in non-election years, and candidates during election years. Makes sense.
“The issue advocacy totals reveal that dark money groups are already priming the electorate ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. HuffPost's review also shows that conservative and corporate interests continued to dominate overall dark money spending in 2013, even as liberal dark money groups equaled the amount spent by conservatives on campaign activity alone.
“Conservative groups have already spent at least $15.8 million on issue ads to promote Republican candidates and attack Democrats ahead of the November midterms. Americans for Prosperity, the nonprofit founded and funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, led all groups with at least $12.4 million spent on candidate-specific ads opposing the implementation of Obamacare… Liberal dark money groups, meanwhile, spent at least $3.3 million on issue advocacy with nearly all of that spending coming from the League of Conservation Voters… One signal that the intention of these ads is not simply to advance or block legislation is that the majority of them since the beginning of 2013 have mentioned incumbent lawmakers who are vulnerable in November.” Huffington Post.
Fresh signals of what we are likely to see in the upcoming mid-term federal elections. It must be nice to have enough money to influence the outcome of elections, to have those running for office to accept your message and tone or look like they are out of step with the obvious trends. In the old days, you just had to bribe the elected official to get what you wanted if you were rich and had no moral or legal worries about taking that action. There were risks, but hey, the rewards were huge. Today, you can effectively deploy your cash to buy elections quite legally… and you wonder why the rich get richer?! “Loopholes and Low Tax Rates Я Us”!
I’m Peter Dekom, and it’s actually getting embarrassing to brag about how effective the American form of democracy is compared to ??????

No comments: