|
5:22 PM (57 minutes ago)
 | | ||
Greetings fellow Philanthropist,
In his 1830s work "Democracy in America" , the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville praises the emerging democratic order developing in America, as it transitions away from the Aristocratic order of old. Tocqueville sang praise of the United States of America's focus on secure laws, liberty, and most importantly equality. Even though he was a part of the 1830s French aristocracy, I believe he'd be truly disappointed to see the dismal state of America's political system today. In my opinion one of the largest issues he would have is with the return of the reliance on immense sums of money for elections. The amount of necessary funding it takes to run a successful campaign has lead to the return of the Aristocratic order, where only the wealthy and connected are the ones able to effectively participate in elections. A common term in the realm of campaign donations is something called a "Superpac", which can raise unlimited funds and use them to advocate for or against a candidate. Superpacs have to disclose to the Federal election committee; their donors, the amount donated, and how it was spent. These Superpacs have become huge components of modern elections and have the ability to heavily influence results. Unfortunately, these Superpacs are not the only political mechanisms capable of influencing electoral outcomes and over the course of recent history and elections, the nonprofit sector has been exploited as a way to anonymously contribute mass amounts of money to campaigns without having to disclose information to the Federal Election Committee.
This issue is the area of contemporary political elections I wish to discuss today. Politically active nonprofit organizations, specifically social welfare groups and business leagues, use their special status to avoid disclosing the source of the funds for massive campaign contributions. These donations from unknown, undisclosed sources is often referred to as "Dark Money". The fact that donors of dark money don't have to be disclosed is very appealing to some big political givers who don't wish to attach their name or brand to one particular side but still want to sway the election for a particular side. The two most common nonprofit organizational status involved in "Dark Money" donations are 501(c)(4) and 501 (c)(6). 501(c)(4) are commonly referred to as "Social Welfare" groups and are legally allowed to influence political elections, but are used to funnel in mass amounts of money to campaigns, and without proper oversight, can lead to intense corruption within our elections. 501 (c)(6) organizations are nonprofit organizations based on business leagues, such as Unions, professional associations, and chambers of commerce. The "Dark Money" funneled Into the political systems from these nonprofit organization allows anonymous donors to wield vast amounts of power In our political system.
Campaign contributions through "Dark Money" have been utilized by both sides of the political spectrum, leading to a political "arms" race between the two parties for the most "Dark Money". However, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; The conservative base tends to utilize them the most, outspending liberal dark money groups 8 to 1 in times such as the 2012 election. Crossroads GPS is an extremely well known 501 (c)(4) run by the conservative magnet Karl Roves. During the 2012 presidential election, Crossroad GPS spent over 85 million dollars on the election, with over 70 million dollars spent on anti-Obama political attack ads. Another conservative 501 (c )(4) organization that spent immense sums of money in the 2012 presidential election was the nonprofit political advocacy group founded by owners of the second largest privately owned business in America, the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity. This organization spent a substantial $33.5 million dollars opposing Barrack Obama. On the other end of the political spectrum, the more liberally leaning 501 (c)(4) such as the Atlantic Advocacy fund, only spent 30 million dollars from undisclosed sources supporting democratic candidates in elections from 2008 to 2012.
These mass sums of money being spent running smear campaigns and purchasing TV time for political attack ads achieve the opposite goal of what non profits were meant to fulfill. These organizations don't support the social welfare but instead use unanimous donations to sway elections to personally profit off of it, and the examples given in this post are unfortunately just a select few of instances wherein the non profit sector can be taken advantage of by private interest to sway public elections. The idea that our elections are fair, with everyone having an equal say on the outcome is one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, and the largest take away of Alexis de Tocqueville's time spent in America. Protecting this vital aspect of American society is too important to allow private interest to exploit the democracy we have all grown to love.
https://www.
https://www.publicintegrity.
http://abcnews.go.com/
This issue is the area of contemporary political elections I wish to discuss today. Politically active nonprofit organizations, specifically social welfare groups and business leagues, use their special status to avoid disclosing the source of the funds for massive campaign contributions. These donations from unknown, undisclosed sources is often referred to as "Dark Money". The fact that donors of dark money don't have to be disclosed is very appealing to some big political givers who don't wish to attach their name or brand to one particular side but still want to sway the election for a particular side. The two most common nonprofit organizational status involved in "Dark Money" donations are 501(c)(4) and 501 (c)(6). 501(c)(4) are commonly referred to as "Social Welfare" groups and are legally allowed to influence political elections, but are used to funnel in mass amounts of money to campaigns, and without proper oversight, can lead to intense corruption within our elections. 501 (c)(6) organizations are nonprofit organizations based on business leagues, such as Unions, professional associations, and chambers of commerce. The "Dark Money" funneled Into the political systems from these nonprofit organization allows anonymous donors to wield vast amounts of power In our political system.
Campaign contributions through "Dark Money" have been utilized by both sides of the political spectrum, leading to a political "arms" race between the two parties for the most "Dark Money". However, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; The conservative base tends to utilize them the most, outspending liberal dark money groups 8 to 1 in times such as the 2012 election. Crossroads GPS is an extremely well known 501 (c)(4) run by the conservative magnet Karl Roves. During the 2012 presidential election, Crossroad GPS spent over 85 million dollars on the election, with over 70 million dollars spent on anti-Obama political attack ads. Another conservative 501 (c )(4) organization that spent immense sums of money in the 2012 presidential election was the nonprofit political advocacy group founded by owners of the second largest privately owned business in America, the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity. This organization spent a substantial $33.5 million dollars opposing Barrack Obama. On the other end of the political spectrum, the more liberally leaning 501 (c)(4) such as the Atlantic Advocacy fund, only spent 30 million dollars from undisclosed sources supporting democratic candidates in elections from 2008 to 2012.
These mass sums of money being spent running smear campaigns and purchasing TV time for political attack ads achieve the opposite goal of what non profits were meant to fulfill. These organizations don't support the social welfare but instead use unanimous donations to sway elections to personally profit off of it, and the examples given in this post are unfortunately just a select few of instances wherein the non profit sector can be taken advantage of by private interest to sway public elections. The idea that our elections are fair, with everyone having an equal say on the outcome is one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, and the largest take away of Alexis de Tocqueville's time spent in America. Protecting this vital aspect of American society is too important to allow private interest to exploit the democracy we have all grown to love.
Sincerely,
David Engelmann
https://www.
https://www.publicintegrity.
http://abcnews.go.com/
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king" - Bob Dylan
David,
ReplyDeleteI too share your opinion regarding the inequality of the rich and everyone else in the political spectrum. I too feel that politics is inaccessible to regular people and there is a bar that you have to surpass in order to have any political influence whatsoever. We see a perfect example of this with the recent anti gun protests in Florida. We (the youth) have almost no say when it comes to lawmaking and have to resort to protests just to get our message out. Even now politicians disparage these protests. Elizabeth Porter from the Florida house of representatives made disgusting remarks about the protests and the amendment proposed in Florida. Porter argued against the amendment, that included banning certain weapons, "We've been told we need to listen to the children and do what the children ask. Are there any children on this floor? Are there any children making laws? Do we allow the children to tell us that we should pass a law that says, 'No homework'? Or 'You finish high school at the age of 12' just because they want it so? No. The adults make the laws because we have the age. We have the wisdom. And we have the experience." When I heard this I was actually astonished. I knew that representatives cared little about our opinions but to hear her literally say on tv that she does not respect our opinions and we do not deserve to be heard. A little info on Elizabeth Porter is that she currently has a 100% rating by the NRA and has received many donations by the gun lobby. It is disgusting to see our elected representatives have no regard for the literal lives of their constituents and show preference for faceless dark money lobbies. Young people have the lowest voter turn out of all age groups and people wonder why.
David,
ReplyDeleteYour post on "dark money" resonated with me because this is a topic that I have come across in my own research. I am currently writing a paper regarding the economic implications involved with climate change legislation. I recently came across research that showed that hundreds of millions of dollars were donated to nonprofit organizations dedicated to spreading climate change denial propaganda. Those hundreds of millions of dollars were donated through the "dark money" loophole. The fact that contributors do not have to be named is, quite frankly, undemocratic. You spoke about SuperPacs in your post but at least those are required to name their contributors. These non-profits are not allowed to directly campaign but they are allowed to talk about important "issue areas." To me, spending money to influence people on a certain "issue area" is equivalent to campaigning for a candidate. The specific difference between campaigning and speaking on an "issue area" was adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (major case regarding campaign finance). However, the difference between the two is indiscernable by the average person. Hundreds of millions of dollars should not allowed to be funnelled through these "dark money" groups. I think the issue stems from conservatives arguing that all non-profits are "good" and "charitable" so donations to these organizations should not be scrutinized. In reality, "dark money" is just another loophole used by (mostly) rich conservatives to support a candidate without people knowing. A truly democratic process involves complete transparency in campaign finance. "Dark money" is a loophole that has been abused for too long. Campaign finance reform is a serious issue that should be addressed sooner rather than later.
This reminds me of the 2009 supreme court case, Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. The nonprofit Citizens United wanted to release a documentary smearing the campaign of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but a current law prevented corporations and private organizations from using their funds to release political speech advocating for or against a candidate. They argued that this infringed on their 1st amendment right to free speech, and the court decided in their favor, allowing them to post their smear video.
ReplyDeleteThis decision was significant because it ultimately decided that corporations should have the same right to a political voice as citizens. The problem with this decision can be summarized by Lincolns famous words, that our government is "of the people, by the people, for the people". Corporations are not people. They are private, anonymous entities, with no moral obligations and are interested only in the success of their organization. Why should corporations get a say in our government, when our government is supposed to represent the interests of us, the people? Given the immense resources available to corporations compared to individuals, private companies have the ability to exhibit far more influence over the outcomes of elections through campaign ads and donations than people. This creates a government that doesn't represent the interests of the people, but instead of private companies. Like you pointed out, this is not the democracy that de Tocqueville was impressed by.
Citizens United Case - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDavid,
What you brought up is a very profound topic. In today’s America and most democratic countries, money is often associated with power, and vice versa. Almost all presidential candidates are supported by large conglomerates and political machines, and they support each other in order to achieve their own agendas and benefit mutually. During each election, massive amount of money is spent into ads, broadcast, newspaper, and TV programs in order to sway public view by beautifying themselves and disparaging their political opponents. Also, due to the rapid development of social media and information technologies in recent years, we as regular consumers become increasingly susceptible to influence of advertisements with hidden political agenda, to the point that we are immersed in political propaganda 24/7 without evening knowing it. The recent privacy scandal of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is a perfect representation of that. The “Dark Money” involving non-profit you mention might just be one of the common strategies used in a political campaign.
It is a very sad reality that non-profit organizations are used by political campaigns this way. But we can hardly do anything about it, since politics is simply too inaccessible to regular people. This is indeed an underlying issue within our political system that is undermining our democracy. I do think transparency in the finance of political campaigns will be a good place to start. But when it has become the norm, who would step up and make a change?