It’s been years since I managed a political campaign, but I get outside of Washington, D.C. nearly every week. With early voting commencing in more than half of the country, and millions of ballots being cast absentee or in person, there is only one thing known for certain: This midterm election remains fluid.
But no matter the affiliation or partisan label, nearly everyone is worried about the state of American democracy.
We live in a nation where, if historical trends continue, nearly $4 billion will be spent during the 2014 campaign ”“ the most expensive midterm election in our history.
All this money is being spent, yet there’s no real impact on voter’s knowledge of the issues.
Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution wrote to me about a recent study Brookings conducted about the primary period of the 2014 election season:
“To my surprise and to the surprise of our research team, the primaries, especially the Democratic ones, were largely void of substance with the exception of the old Democratic standby of protecting Social Security and Medicare. There were more issues on the Republican side, but those were standardized across the board ”“ repeal Obamacare, cut regulations, etc. All in all a pretty empty season, perhaps best characterized by Jill Lawrence and Walter Shapiro in the title of their article: ”˜Phoning It in and Failing to Show: The Story of the 2014 House Primaries.’”
After the Watergate scandal, in which illicit campaign financing played a large role, stricter reform laws were passed. Limits were placed on what any one person could contribute. But since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, the same individuals who must list their names and donations publically when contributing to candidates can turn around and contribute “dark money” until there’s nothing but lint left in their pockets to anonymous “outside groups” called super PACs, which are not supposed to coordinate with campaigns.
Labor unions and corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates. Yet they can spend unlimited funds on candidates and ballot issues via these super PACs, and keep both donors and monies secret. The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law released a study this week on the dark money pouring into elections by the billions. The Brennan report says that, of nine of the Senate races around the country identified as toss-ups, “Dark-money groups that hide some or all of their donors accounted for $88.6 million, or 56 percent, of non-party outside spending.”
Both the Brennan Center and The New York Times have found that 75 percent of political ads benefiting Republicans have flowed through groups not required to disclose their finances, while 25 percent of political ads benefiting Democrats have done the same.
Yet, this column isn’t about dark money alone. It’s about the voter’s right to vote. Inherent in that vote is a voter’s ability to inform herself or himself about who supports the candidates. If the voter is in the dark about who or what interests are providing millions for a candidate, how can they judge if the candidate is indebted by the gift?
Dark money leaves voters in the dark.
Let’s take two examples. In Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell has raised $28.6 million and is second in the nation in benefiting from secret donors and money, with some $10.7 in dark money supporting his campaign to attack his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. If Republicans should win the Senate, and McConnell keep his post, no one will know if dark money, coming from a so-called “social welfare group” named Kentuckians for Strong Leadership is guiding his public decisions.
The Senate Majority PAC, an outsider super PAC supporting Democrats, has outspent both major party committees around the country. This super PAC, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, has “virtually fully funded Put Alaska First, a super PAC supporting the re-election of Alaska Democrat Sen. Mark Begich.
“So what?” some would say. “Money is the mother’s milk of politics. What difference does it make if donors and amounts are public or secret?” The Brennan Center puts it clearly: “Outside money made possible by weak regulation and Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United is giving wealthy spenders more power than ever to buy influence over elections.” That’s not government of the people, but government of the few wealthy donors.
We all remember and love the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Jimmy Stewart plays an idealistic man appointed to a Senate seat by a corrupt governor. Stewart gets to Washington, and introduces a bill to build a boys’ camp. That bill runs into trouble when the land set aside for it is already going to use to enrich Smith’s colleague in the Senate from the same state.
In the era of secret donors, dark money and outside groups, it is becoming harder and harder for a Mr. or Ms. Smith to make it to Washington. It is up to the American people to demand their legislators pass laws to ensure the disclosure of donors and set limits on contributions. Our democratic system of governance is at risk if we remain silent.
— Donna Brazile is a senior Democratic strategist, a political commentator and contributor to CNN and ABC News, and a contributing columnist to Ms. Magazine and O, the Oprah Magazine.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
