
- Select a language for the TTS:
- UK English Female
- UK English Male
- US English Female
- US English Male
- Australian Female
- Australian Male
- Language selected: (auto detect) - EN
Play all audios:
A couple of days ago I linked to Adam Skaggs asking Congress to change the ridiculous campaign fundraising rules that allow Super PACs to coordinate with campaigns even though it’s
supposedly strictly forbidden. Today, Rick Hasen says that Super PACs are yesterday’s news:
Right after Citizens United was decided, there was a great debate within the campaign finance world over whether the case would change campaign finance patterns. Some pointed to the fact
that in the 2010 election, we saw barely any independent spending directly by corporations. My view had always been that most (for profit) corporations would not want to stick their necks
out and risk alienating customers by putting their names on independent ads. For corporate money to really matter, there would have to be a way to filter it through committees and sometimes
to hide the money entirely. Thanks to Super PACs and the transformation of 501c4′s, both of these are now possible and we are witnessing the corporate money coming in….We don’t know how much
corporate money is coming in now (and as to 501c4s, because of lack of disclosure we likely will never have the full picture). But it seems a safe bet that there is lot more corporate money
coming into the system than was (barely) allowed in the pre-Citizens United world.
….My big concern before yesterday was that we would see a lot of transfers of money from 501c4s to affiliated Super PACs to shield the identity of donors to Super PACs. I’m still trying to
get a handle on how much of this took place (apparently less than I thought). But the reason these transfers are not taking place is that it appears the 501c4s are engaging in much more
direct election-related activity than they have in the past. That is, we are seeing some 501c4s becoming pure election vehicles. The relation of 501c4s to super pacs is now like the past
relation between 527s and pacs—these are now the vehicles of questionable legality to influence elections. While Adam Skaggs is rightly focused on fixing the coordination rules for Super
PACs, this seems to be fighting yesterday’s war already. The key is to stop 501c4s from becoming shadow super PACs. Yes, campaign finance reform community, it has become this bad: I want
more super PACs, because the 501c4 alternative is worse!
Well, yes, we could rein in 501c(4) spending by requiring that they disclose their donors, and the DISCLOSE Act would have done just that. Needless to say, it failed even in 2010, when
Democrats controlled the House and had a huge majority in the Senate. It received, if I recall correctly, two Republican votes in the House and zero Republican votes in the Senate.
So there’s not really much chance that a revived and amended DISCLOSE Act is going to pass now. We are doomed.
Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends
to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.
No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes
to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real
difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.
“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends
to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.
No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes
to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real
difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.
Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.
Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.
Inexpensive, too! Subscribe today and get a full year of Mother Jones for just $19.95.
Award-winning photojournalism. Stunning video. Fearless conversations.
Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
We’re a nonprofit newsroom, because the truth-telling investigations we’re known for don’t happen under corporate ownership. We shine a bright light into the dark corners of power and report
the facts other media are afraid to touch.
The essential ingredient that makes this possible? Readers like you. Please stand with Mother Jones and make a donation today. These are dangerous times, and we’ve got a lot of hard,
consequential work to do. But we can’t do it without reader support.
We’re a nonprofit newsroom, because the truth-telling investigations we’re known for don’t happen under corporate ownership. We shine a bright light into the dark corners of power and report
the facts other media are afraid to touch.
The essential ingredient that makes this possible? Readers like you. Please stand with Mother Jones and make a donation today. These are dangerous times, and we’ve got a lot of hard,
consequential work to do. But we can’t do it without reader support.