The Guardian: Dark money: the quixotic quest to clean up US campaign financing
The Guardian: Dark money: the quixotic quest to clean up US campaign financing
It would, activists testify, restore the public’s waning trust in vital US institutions, curb the corrupting influence of big money in politics and give America’s ailing democracy a much-needed shot in the arm.
It is also, they acknowledge, dead on arrival.
An amendment to the US constitution was last week proposed by Congressman Adam Schiff to overturn a 2010 precedent set by the supreme court, known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour billions of dollars into election campaigns.
Passing the amendment would, Schiff argues, enable Congress or individual states to propose reasonable limits on private campaign contributions and independent expenditures. “Let’s get dark money out of our democracy,” he tweeted. “And return power to the people.”
Such a move has broad public support in America but little chance of getting through Congress itself. Amending the constitution requires support from a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate plus ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. …
Pacs (political action committees) raise and spend money for campaigns that support or attack political candidates or legislation. Pacs are allowed to donate directly to a candidate’s official campaign but subject to limits on what contributions they can give or receive.
In the wake of Citizens United, however, a federal appeals court ruled that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions as long as they do not give directly to candidates. These Super Pacs are allowed to spend money to endorse or oppose candidates with adverts that are produced independently.
But Karen Hobert Flynn, president of the democracy reform group Common Cause, said: “The reality since that decision shows that it is not necessarily independent – we see lots of coordination between candidates and Super Pacs – and it causes enormous damage to our imperfect democracy where wealthy mega-donors, corporations, special interest groups not only impact and influence elections but, once elected, lawmakers feel like they need to grant favours for those who funded their campaigns.”
Super Pacs are obliged to disclose their donors but these can include non-profits which make the original source of the money hard to track. More than 2,000 Super Pacs operated in each of the last two election cycles.
The negative consequences have been felt not only in Washington but at state level, added Flynn, whose long fight for campaign finance reform in Connecticut bore fruit in 2008. “It has created a huge amount of cynicism that Congress and state legislatures are corrupt because they benefit from outside groups spending money on their behalf and that people’s voices do not matter.
“The money has also led to further polarisation, driving more extreme kinds of measures, particularly on the right where we’ve seen money supporting those who want to overturn a fair and free election. If you look at the top 10 Super Pacs and their outside spending so far just in 2022, you’ll see nine out of the top 10 Super Pacs are conservative or support Republican candidates. It isn’t like, ‘Hey, both sides do it and it’s equal and it’s not a problem.’”