When the history of elections in 2016 is written, one of the central points is likely to be how little voters knew about the donors who influenced the contests. At the federal level, “dark money” groups — chiefly social welfare nonprofits and trade associations that aren’t required to disclose their donors and, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising — have spent three times more in this election than they did at a comparable point in 2012. Yet the rise of dark money may matter less in the race for president or Congress than for, say, the utilities commission in Arizona. Voters probably know much less about the candidates in contests like that, which get little news coverage but whose winner will have enormous power to affect energy company profits and what homeowners pay for electricity. For a relative pittance — less than $100,000 — corporations and others can use dark money to shape the outcome of a low-level race in which they have a direct stake. Over the last year, the Brennan Center analyzed outside spending from before and after the 2010 Citizens United decision in six states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine and Massachusetts — with almost 20 percent of the nation’s population. We also examined dozens of state and local elections where dark money could be linked to a particular interest.
We found that, on average, 38 times more dark money was spent in these states in 2014 than in 2006. That’s an even greater increase than at the federal level, where dark money rose 34 times over the same period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Compounding the problem was the growth in “gray money,” spent by organizations that are legally required to disclose their donors but receive their funding through multiple layers of PACs that obscure its origin.
In 2006, 76 percent of outside spending in these six states was fully transparent. In 2014, just 29 percent was, according to our analysis of data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. This ability to dominate a race with high stakes at low cost and with no oversight can facilitate corruption.
A Utah legislative investigation found that as a candidate for state attorney general in 2012, John Swallow “hung a veritable ‘for sale’ sign on the office door” when his aide arranged for payday loan companies to fund about $450,000 in dark money ads in exchange for his promise to shield them from consumer protection laws. With voters unaware of this, Mr. Swallow won; he resigned after less than a year in office. Mr. Swallow now faces trial on unrelated corruption charges.
Full Article: The Secret Power Behind Local Elections – The New York Times.