Secret
spending on the local level rose from 24 percent in 2006 to 71 percent in 2014
EDITOR’S
NOTE: Outside money is the dominant factor in Charlestown’s politics because it
provides the majority of the funding for the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA
Party). The CCA Party now holds every elected office in Charlestown gaining the
power to protect the interests of non-residents at the expense of year-round
residents.
This
outside money gives the CCA publicity machine the means to be able to market
this sell-out of the public interest to Charlestown voters as if it was
something good for them.
While the outsized influence that Big Money is having on federal
elections is well-documented,
the local impact of the Supreme Court's 2011 Citizens United ruling
has not been fully realized—until now.
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of
Law on Sunday published a landmark report (pdf)
documenting how secret donations have corroded democracy at the state level,
where it is "arguably most damaging."
"Mining companies secretly targeting a legislator who opposed permits. Food companies battling a ballot measure to add labeling requirements. Payday lenders supporting an attorney general who promised to shield them from regulation," writes Brennan Center president Michael Waldman, listing the ways that outside money has corrupted local politics.
According to the report, secret spending on the local level rose
from 24 percent in 2006 to 71 percent in 2014. This is largely due to a new
phenomenon the authors have dubbed "Gray Money," which is when
"organizations, which are legally required to disclose their donors, route
money through multiple layers of PACs to obscure its origin."
The first of its kind survey analyzed spender and contributor
reports in six geographically and demographically diverse states, where
sufficient data was available: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine,
and Massachusetts. The sample represents approximately 20 percent of the
nation's population.
The lower cost of state and local elections makes it relatively
easy for dark money to dominate. According to the study, outside groups often
outspent candidates by the $10,000's to lower $100,000's, which it notes is
"a modest business expense for special interests, but a major hurdle for
many candidates and community groups."
As Waldman mentioned, these funds "frequently flow from
special interests with a direct and immediate economic stake in the outcome of
the contest in which they are spending, in contrast to what is often portrayed
as the more broadly ideological outside spending at the federal level,"
the report states.
"Distinct from the federal level, voters in every state and
innumerable counties and towns face ballot measures where they directly decide
policy questions — education spending, collective bargaining, taxes — often
with major financial consequences for a relatively small but economically
powerful constituency," it continues.
Moreover, "these are often low-information elections,"
where special interest spenders can easily sway voters by flooding local media
with "unaccountable [advertising] messages."
In an New York Times op-ed published
Saturday, report lead author Chisun Lee and Lawrence Norden, deputy director of
the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, document some of the examples where
such dark or gray spending has facilitated corruption.
"Persuading the Supreme Court to overturn recent decisions
such as Citizens United, which empowered donors to spend unlimited amounts via
opaque business and nonprofit entities, would go a long way toward fixing the
problem," they write.
"But until that happens," add Lee and Norden,
"there is evidence that states, through strong disclosure laws and
enforcement, can make it very difficult for spenders to conceal their
identities from the public, even if they can’t eliminate dark money."
