Shadow campaigns in the United States

Last updated

Shadow campaigns (or dark money) refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not publicly disclosed or is difficult to trace. [1] United States campaign finance law has been regulated by the Federal Election Commission since its creation in the wake of the Watergate Scandal in 1975, and in the years following Citizens United v. FEC, there has been a rise in outside special interest groups spending money on political campaigns in the United States. [2] Dark money leaves voters uninformed about important political information and it can obscure potential conflicts of interest for judges and legislators alike. [3]

Contents

Dark money

Shadow campaigns run on dark money, or money that is spent by an undisclosed donor that is intended to influence a given constituencies voting patterns. [4] Dark money is often spent by non-profit organizations and super-PACs. [5] [6]

Types of outside interest groups

Political non-profit organizations

Initially, non-profit organizations were limited in their abilities to contribute to political activities in The United States. Slowly, these organizations have risen to prominence in terms of campaign fundraising and spending in American elections. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States determined that these outside groups could spend money independently on issue ads that do not contain any expressed advocacy for a candidate or party. Additionally, they could make independent expenditures so long as that expenditure was done with "hard money" that was regulated by and disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. [7] There are several types of political non-profit organizations, including 501(c)(4)s (social welfare organizations), 501(c)(5)s (labor unions), and 501(c)(6)s (business and trade organizations). [8] The rise of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations forced the courts to change how they viewed non-profit organizations. In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court recognized that non-profits serve different functions and should be treated differently. The Court ruled that the group (Massachusetts Citizens for Life) had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by dispersing political propaganda using funds from its general treasury. But, the Court reasoned that, if social welfare groups have a predominantly political purpose and take the entirety of their donations from citizens, then the revenue generated reflects public opinion; so long as groups do not engage in any business-like activity, preventing them from spending money for political purposes this would be a first amendment violation. [9]

As a result of FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a new type of company, the Qualified Non-Profit Corporation (QNC), was born. This would be the standard until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002). The BCRA had provisions that specifically targeted non-profit organizations, disallowing them from purchasing ads aimed at a specific constituency with the intent to persuade. [10] This would soon be challenged in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) where it was found that Congress could only regulate expressed advocacy. [11] This set up the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC (2010). The Citizens United ruling essentially equated money spent with speech, treating these groups like individuals. The Supreme Court help that limiting money spent by an interest group is equivocal to limiting the voice of an individual. [12] As a result, organizations that had a "primary purpose" unrelated to politics could endorse candidates, organize partisan activities, and purchase advertising, all with funds from their general treasury. As long as they followed the "primary purpose rule" they are not legally obligated to disclose their donors. [8] Hence the term, dark money.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.pdf
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Super-PACs

A new type of committee has emerged in recent times known as a "Super" Political Action Committee. Super-PACs were created in the aftermath of Speechnow.org v. FEC. SpeechNow was an unincorporated, non-profit 527 political interest group. Their sole purpose was to pool funds to partake in independent expenditures expressly advocating in elections. The Supreme Court of the United States found that since the group was a citizen group with the sole goal of pursuing political activity, and further was not incorporated and therefore not barred from expenditures, they should not be limited in their contributions. The idea being that since their sole purpose was to engage in independent expenditures, there was no reason to believe there is a threat of corruption so long as their expenditures remain separate from the candidates, committees, and parties. Additionally, the rules of independent expenditures still apply, so they must fully disclose what they spend their money on as well as who their donors are. The United States government had no intentions of limiting donations to citizen movements, just campaigns subject to corruption. [13] Super-PACs, as they would come to be called, began to pop up everywhere. Free to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, super-PACs dominate election spending in the United States. These independent expenditure-only committees, raise money from corporations, unions, and individuals with free rein to express advocacy as they choose. Unlike a regular Political Action Committee (PAC), these groups cannot donate to campaigns. Even talking to these campaigns is considered illegal through the United States laws on coordination. [14] Super-PACs typically operate legally, however, there are instances where they can manipulate the system and act as a dark money organization. Super-PACs must disclose their donors, though, they can accept unlimited donations from non-profit organizations, such as 501(c) organizations and "shell" corporations who do not have to disclose their donors. These loopholes makes it easier to funnel money from group to group, expanding the amount of dark money in these shadow campaigns. [5]

Coordination laws

The FEC Seal Seal of the United States Federal Election Commission.svg
The FEC Seal

A "Super-PAC" can spend unlimited amounts with expressed advocacy to a campaign, as long as its expenditures are independent of any campaign: there can be no coordination between with candidates, committees, or the parties. All communications, monetary contributions or payments must be made outside of the candidate, committees, or parties. Essentially, communications made at the request or suggestion of the candidate, committee, or party are illegal. Second, the content of the expenditure directly makes political reference to a party or candidate with the intent to influence an election within ninety days of that election. Meaning, it is illegal if the campaign has any involvement in the material content of the communication. Third, the conduct of those running the advertisement should not suggest any coordination with a candidate, party, or committee. Thus, even the campaign having substantial conversations with the spender prior to the communication is illegal. Lastly, the campaign and the spender cannot employ a common vendor, nor previous employees within 120 days. This ensures that the campaign doesn't intentionally funnel information through a common vendor from party to party, nor can a campaign purposely let an employee go with the intent of coordinating on advertisements with an outside group. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance reform in the United States</span> United States efforts to regulate fundraising for democratic election campaigns

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Independent expenditure</span> Type of political campaign communication in the US

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified political candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with – or at the request or suggestion of – a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party. If a candidate's agent, authorized committee, party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, as well as other kinds of associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Crossroads</span> Republican political organization in the US

American Crossroads is a US Super PAC that raises funds from donors to advocate for certain candidates of the Republican Party. It has pioneered many of the new methods of fundraising opened up by the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Its president is Steven J. Law, a former United States Deputy Secretary of Labor for President George W. Bush and the Chairman of the Board of Directors is former Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan. Advisers to the group include Senior Advisor and former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, or DISCLOSE Act, is a federal campaign finance reform bill that has been introduced in the United States Congress since 2010. The bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for greater and faster public disclosure of campaign spending and to combat the use of so-called "dark money" in U.S. elections.

The American Action Network (AAN) is a nonprofit, conservative issue advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., aligned to the Republican Party. It was established in 2010 by Fred Malek and Norm Coleman as a 501(c)(4) organization.

Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," are unlike traditional political action committees in that they may raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups to spend on, for example, ads overtly advocating for or against political candidates. However, they are not allowed to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties. Super PACs are subject to the same organizational, reporting, and public disclosure requirements of traditional PACs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colbert Super PAC</span> American satirical political action committee

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow was a United States political action committee (PAC) established by Stephen Colbert, who portrayed a character of the same name who was a mock-conservative political pundit on Comedy Central's satirical television series The Colbert Report. As a super PAC the organization could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money would be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> Undisclosed American political contributions

In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.

Priorities USA Action is the largest Democratic Party super PAC. Founded in 2011, it supported Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. It was the primary super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign. In the 2020 presidential election, Priorities USA Action spent the third highest amount of all outside spending groups. It focuses mainly on high-dollar donors; former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major donor to the group.

Fundraising plays a central role in many presidential campaigns, and is a key factor in determining the viability of candidates. Money raised is applied for the salaries of non-volunteers in the campaign, transportation, campaign materials, media advertisements and other contingencies. Under United States law, officially declared candidates are required to file campaign finance details with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) at the end of every calendar month or quarter. Summaries of these reports are made available to the public shortly thereafter, revealing the relative financial situations of all the campaigns.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

A hybrid PAC is a political committee classification in the United States. It is used by the Federal Election Commission to describe a committee with certain spending and contribution limitations.

Acronym is a Washington, D.C.–based American 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, co-founded by Tara McGowan and Michael Dubin in 2017. The organization is one of the major coordinators and producers of digital media campaigns aligned with the Democratic Party, and has been hired by or has provided support to various other organizations including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emily's List, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Planned Parenthood. It was the majority owner of Shadow, Inc., a technology company that made the mobile application software that malfunctioned during vote tallying at the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, but later divested its stake in the company.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a hub of undisclosed political spending on the American Left. The group serves as a fiscal sponsor for other organizations, incubating and financing various progressive projects. According to The New York Times, "The Sixteen Thirty is part of a broader network of progressive nonprofits that donors use to fill specific spaces on the political chessboard." The Sixteen Thirty Fund is administered by Arabella Advisors, a for-profit consulting firm.

References

  1. ↑ "Dark Money Basics". OpenSecrets .
  2. ↑ Vandewalker, Ian. "Shadow Campaigns: The Shift in Presidential Campaign Funding to Outside Groups" (PDF). Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
  3. ↑ Bannon, Alicia (July 6, 2018). "The Rise of Dark Money Is a Threat to Judicial Independence | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved 2021-07-20.
  4. ↑ Ball, Molly (February 4, 2021). "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election". Time . Retrieved 2021-07-20.
  5. 1 2 "Dark Money Basics". OpenSecrets. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  6. ↑ Halper, Evan (2018-12-12). "The shadow campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is well underway". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2021-07-20.
  7. 1 2 "Buckley v. Valeo". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  8. 1 2 Schadler, Holly (2012). Chapter I: Lobbying and Political Activities by 501(c)(4)s (PDF). Alliance for Justice. pp. 8–35.
  9. 1 2 "U.S. Reports: FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986)". The Library of Congress. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  10. 1 2 "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 | Definition, Provisions, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  11. 1 2 "Summary of Supreme Court Decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life | Brennan Center for Justice". www.brennancenter.org. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  12. 1 2 "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Opinion, Dissent, Significance, & Influence". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  13. ↑ "Speechnow.org v. FEC". classic.fec.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  14. ↑ "Super PACs | OpenSecrets". www.opensecrets.org. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  15. ↑ "Coordinated communications - FEC.gov". FEC.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  16. ↑ "Tillman Act of 1907". mtsu.edu. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  17. ↑ "Our Documents - Pendleton Act (1883)". www.ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  18. ↑ "The Federal Corrupt Practices Act - The Basics | Stimmel Law". www.stimmel-law.com. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  19. ↑ "U.S. Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act". osc.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  20. ↑ National Labor Relations Board. "1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions".
  21. ↑ "Federal Election Campaign Act | Definition, Amendments, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  22. ↑ "U.S. Reports: Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921)". The Library of Congress. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  23. ↑ "SUN-PAC: Solicitation of Contributions" (PDF). 1972.
  24. ↑ "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce". mtsu.edu. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  25. ↑ "FEC.gov". FEC.gov. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  26. ↑ Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n (Syllabus), June 26, 2008, retrieved November 6, 2018
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.