Is this a case of the fox watching the hen house? And if so, what’s the odds of it ending well?
Our federal campaign finance system is nothing more than legalized bribery, allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent by outside groups on behalf of their favorite candidates and the names of the donors to some of these organizations to remain secret.
Do we think the majority of our elected officials – but particularly the Republicans -- want to make a process that helps them like this more transparent? To force the fabulously wealthy to reveal their donations to help candidates who in many cases they’re tasking with maintaining, and even widening, the wealth gap in this country?
I don’t think so.
Still, in my state of Pennsylvania, a couple of very tiny steps have been made in trying to make the world of political donations more transparent, albeit far from the strides necessary to clean up a mess that’ll always taint our political system with its easy access to corruption.
A story on the Spotlight website titled, “‘Dark money’ groups would be forced to disclose how they spend on PA’s elections under advancing bill.”
Sadly, my state has “notoriously lax campaign finance laws” that put no limit on the amount of money donors can give candidates and political committees, Spotlight reported. That’s an inexcusable situation, but don’t count on its benefactors changing it anytime soon.
Spotlight reported that the state legislature is advancing “modest campaign finance reforms,” and that this election season “will likely see a torrent of hard-to-trace political spending flood the state.”
Both bills recently passed a state House committee with bipartisan support and could receive floor votes in the coming weeks. I don’t know how optimistic we should be considering, as Spotlight reported, “…the legislature has failed to pass even uncontroversial changes in recent years.”
“These aren’t giant steps forward, but they are steps forward,” said Michael Pollack, executive director of the good-government group March on Harrisburg.
Okay, we’ll give them that.
One of the two bills would require federally registered nonprofits – known as 501(c)4 organizations – to report any political spending, including amounts and intended targets. These nonprofits are not required by federal law to reveal their donors, hence the “dark money” moniker.
Unfortunately, and a sign of how hard it is to clean up the process, the bill doesn’t require the identification of donors. That’s a big issue here -- what mystery men and women are spending oodles of money for their favorite candidates.
The other bill would require General Assembly candidates to file two additional campaign finance reports during each election cycle. Candidates for statewide office are already required to file the additional reports.
These dark money nonprofits proliferated after the 2010 Citizen United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that political spending can’t be limited if it’s made independent of a campaign. Talk about a decision detached from reality or an understanding of its consequences.
Spotlight reported that these dark money gangs “have slowly started to seep into the state’s political infrastructure.”
You can read the Spotlight report here.
Admittedly, both parties benefit from these organizations, but it seems the Republicans are the ones more determined to maintain the status quo. For instance, in 2021 every Republican in the U.S. House who voted was against the For the People Act, which would have required super PACs and dark money groups to disclose their donors publicly.
That bill also tried to level the financial playing field somewhat by establishing a public funding match for small-dollar donations, financed by a fee on corporations and banks paying civil or criminal penalties. This would amplify the voice of those who can only donate small amounts, as opposed to the millionaires and billionaires stacking huge piles of cash on the political scale.
It was another good Democratic bill that couldn’t overcome the Senate filibuster process.
So, how do we bring about changes to lessen the effect of money on our political system. Without 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, it probably isn’t going anywhere on the federal level no matter what the House and the White House want.
The answer may be more likely on the state level, which may not affect federal races but at least it’s a start. Still, until we’re able to know who this secret money is coming from and put some kind of limit on it, no change will be sufficient.
And like term limits, it may come down to enough of us demanding that a candidate be supportive of this as a requirement to receive our vote. Another long shot, I know.
Money in politics is not being made a big enough issue. It may be a cliché, but money is the root of all evil, and it’s a driving force in even who can run for office, let alone who wins. It’s a cancer on our political system, and we need to show a sense of urgency in cutting in out.
Until we do, we know where we’ll find too many of our politicians – in the pockets of big donors, so deep that they can pick up the lint in their spare time.
***
Thank you for reading my post. You can see my other writings on my blog: Musings of a Nobody. Please share and subscribe for free via email on its home page.