Dark Money

Spending in Key Senate Races

'Shattering' Records

By Lauren McCauley, Common Dreams

October 2014--Most Americans know that this is an age of skyrocketing spending on elections.

Less widely understood is how the source of that spending has dramatically changed in recent years, and what that means for our democracy.

Outside spending by those other than the candidates themselves has increased dramatically both in dollar terms and as a percentage of total election spending.

Among outside spenders, the portion coming from the political parties has diminished, as outside groups that are independent of both candidates and parties or at least claim to be so increase in importance.

The key players in our political system, candidates and parties, are not necessarily accountable for outside spending.

Non-candidate expenditures are often lacking in transparency, leaving their effects on politics mysterious.

Increasingly, outside spending is a way for those who can afford it to evade the regulation of elections to try to influence elections without playing by the rules of our democracy.

We are now seeing the maturation of the system created by the Supreme Court’s de-regulatory zeal in Citizens United v. FEC.

The Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend their general treasury funds on politics.

Many feared the decision would result in for-profit corporations spending massive amounts directly on elections.

It is now clear that the largest impact was a proliferation of outside groups dedicated to

influencing elections (some of which may, in fact, be conduits for corporate money).

Citizens United led to the creation of super PACs and an explosion in the use of nonprofit organizations to influence elections.

Super PACs and nonprofits can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions.

Nonprofits are not required to disclose the identities of their donors.

The reality of the post-Citizens United world bears little resemblance to the Supreme Court’s rose-colored assumptions.

The Court described a system where immediate disclosure would keep the public informed of the potential influence of money.

The reality is that most non-party outside spending originates with hidden sources.

The Court assumed that outside spending could not corrupt candidates because it comes from entities whose activity is independent of candidates’ campaigns.

The reality is that outside groups, some devoted to electing a single candidate, cooperate with candidates in many ways, potentially making their unlimited contributions as valuable to candidates as the direct contributions that are subject to strict caps.

This report describes the realities created by Citizens United by examining the races where it is likely to have the biggest impact in 2014: competitive races for the U.S. Senate.

Money is pouring into these races because the Republicans are widely seen as having a good chance to take the chamber from the Democrats, which along with their solid majority in the U.S. House, would give them control of Congress.

Conclusion: Dark Money or outside spending gives wealthy spenders more power than ever to buy influence over our political process and elected officials.