Does it matter to you who has bought your Congressmen, Senators, and Governors? I know that the Republican contention is that Unions and George Soros had an unfair advantage in political contributions before the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were people too. Does it matter that the natural gas industry has poured hundreds of thousands into the campaign of Corbett for governor in PA? I wonder if he will crack down on fracking and impose a tax on his top contributors?
The entire political system reeks. It is a putrid ceaspool of corruption, fraud, lies, and money. The landslide by Republicans will change nothing. More money from outside interests will not improve the system. These politicians will bow down to their masters and do as they say like puppets.
The American Debate: Secret donors vs. democracy
The growing use of anonymous donations undermines America’s foundations.
By Dick Polman
Inquirer National Political Columnist
Can we all agree that secret money in politics is a bad thing?
OK, you’re with me. So far, so good.
And can we all agree that the Republicans have been hypocrites on this issue – having long declared that they were against secret money, only to flip-flop in 2010 and declare that they were for it?
OK, now I’ve probably lost half of you. But bear with me.
Thanks to a number of factors – a historic Supreme Court decision that has inspired wealthy donors to pony up, a tax code riddled with loopholes, and toothless federal watchdogs – a record amount of secret money, topping $250 million, is flooding the Senate and House races. We have no idea who these donors are, yet we’ve all seen their handiwork in TV ads. From the shadows, they create front groups with vacuously pleasing names – something like Concerned Citizens for the Betterment of Mankind, or Americans for Puppies, Apple Pie, and the Fourth of July.
By the way, even though it’s true that the Republicans have trumped the Democrats in the secret-money race by more than 2-1, I don’t mean to imply that the GOP is poised to win big Tuesday night simply because its anonymous donors wrote big checks. Nancy Pelosi may think so – the House speaker recently said, “Everything was going great, and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where, because they won’t disclose it, is pouring in” – but she is wrong. Long before the GOP’s richest fans ever got involved, hardly anything was “going great” for the Democrats.
But the secrecy, in itself, is an affront to democracy and the principle of transparency. People give big money for a reason; we may never know what they got in return. We have essentially legalized the practice of backstage bribery, and 2010 is a mere tune-up for the presidential race in 2012.
Last winter, after the U.S. Supreme Court freed up corporations, unions, and other special interests to spend campaign money more easily, rich people felt more emboldened to finance the GOP’s efforts. But they didn’t want the public to know who they were. So, a few intrepid Republican strategists, including Karl Rove, came up with a clever fix. They created nonprofit groups under a section of the tax code reserved for “social welfare organizations” that allows donors to fork over unlimited money without being publicly named. And the secret money has flowed unabated ever since.
So you might be wondering, “Doesn’t the public have a right to know who these donors are? How come Congress hasn’t done something about this?” Well, guess what? Congress has tried. In the spring and summer, the ruling Democrats sought to pass the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (which proves that Democrats will never work on Madison Avenue). Known commonly by its acronym, the DISCLOSE Act, it would essentially force these donors into the open. It passed in the House – with virtually all Republicans voting no. It went to the Senate, where it lingers today because Republicans won’t let it come up for a vote.
I warned you that I would bring up the Republicans’ hypocrisy, defined here as the chasm between what they once professed to believe and what they now practice.
Back in the days when Republicans were strongly opposed to campaign-finance reform (this was a decade ago, when John McCain was mavericky in his efforts to curb big money in politics), they insisted that full disclosure was the best solution, that as long as the voters could see who’s giving the big money, voting decisions could be made on that basis and democracy would be alive and well.
So said George W. Bush, for instance, when he first ran for president in 2000. But let’s go down the list.
Here was Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s current GOP leader, during a 2000 appearance on Meet the Press: “Republicans are in favor of disclosure.” That year, he also said that “the major political players in America” should be subject to disclosure; in his words, “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”
Here was Lamar Alexander, now a Tennessee senator but speaking as a presidential candidate in 1999: “I support . . . free speech and full disclosure. In other words, any individual can give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed every day on the Internet.”
Here was Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s philosophical stance just six months ago: “I think the system needs more transparency, so people can reach their own conclusions.”
Here was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, just six months ago: “I don’t like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable . . . I tend to favor disclosure.”
All four have been blocking the DISCLOSE Act. Meanwhile, on the House side, GOP leader John Boehner said in 2007, “We ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.” But when the DISCLOSE Act came up in the House this year, Boehner voted for darkness.
Actually, Rove’s group, American Crossroads, has engineered the best flip-flop. It was launched this year as a full-disclosure enterprise; one of its board members, ex-GOP national chairman Mike Duncan, said in May, “I’m a proponent of lots of money in politics and full disclosure in politics” – the traditional GOP position. He voiced his support for “full accountability.” But when the potential big donors voiced their distaste for sunlight, the Crossroads gang deep-sixed its disclosure talk and created an offshoot in the aforementioned secrecy section of the tax code. That got the bucks flowing.
And don’t expect the feds to police this behavior. Under the tax code, these social-welfare organizations are supposedly barred from spending more than half their money on politics. But the Federal Elections Commission has a well-deserved reputation for allowing political operatives to play fast and loose with the rules. Indeed, the FEC is set up for stalemate; even if its three Democratic commissioners wanted to move against secret money, its three Republican counterparts would likely block the move.
All told, if sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant (as Boehner once believed, when he borrowed the phrase from Justice Louis Brandeis), then I suppose we must now gird ourselves indefinitely for the toxins that flourish in the dark.
llpoh says:
A much shorter list would be “who isn’t buying our politicians”.
And for fuck sake, we know, in general, who is funding the GOP. It aint the unions. Much of the secrecy is to avoid being attacked by the union thugs. Dems have a huge lead in donations driven by union donations. Unions members have no say in the matter.
Which is worse? It would be better that only individuals be able to donate and only parties be able to place ads
The Dems would crap their pants at this idea.as they would lose their union gravy train. .
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
31st October 2010 at 8:50 pm
Smokey says:
Another ignorant liberal hack piece camouflaged as objective journalism. Author pushes his agenda, pure and simple. Author sucks moose cock and is a world-class douchebag and eater of turtle shit.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
31st October 2010 at 9:27 pm
MuckAbout says:
This whole thing is thanks to the Robert’s Court trashing 200 years of established legal precedent and throwing open the gates to bigger and better pay offs to the politicians.
How can an honest man stay honest when all the money in the world is piled up around his feet and a hollow voice says, “Go ahead, Billy Mac, take all you want – spend what you want on your campaign – oh and by the way, what’s left over is yours to keep and spend however you like – tax free.”
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
31st October 2010 at 9:30 pm
Kill Bill says:
IOUs. AKA FRNs. Thats what.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st October 2010 at 9:41 pm
Kill Bill says:
Scalia, Roberts, Alito.
Federalists. IE big powerful central government.
These guys are not now or ever were for smaller government. Never will be either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
31st October 2010 at 9:52 pm
Smokey says:
Muck—-How did the Robert’s Court trash 200 years of legal precedent? All they did was invalidate PART of their 2002 asinine ruling on the McCain-Feingold bill, which stacked the deck for the liberal party. Without corporate donations to offset, the unions have every goddamn election bought and paid for.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st October 2010 at 10:18 pm
LLPOH says:
Smokey – Thanks. That was my point in general. The nondisclosure helped narrow the gap on the fucking unions. The asshole Dems are screaming bloody murder as they have lost much of their financial edge. The fact that the unions steal the money from their members to give to the Dems is entirely ignored what a bunch of hypocrites
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
31st October 2010 at 11:22 pm
TTT - The Tucson Torch says:
$1.4 billion has been spent so far on this mid-term election. The Democrats lead in spending by over $200 million ………… $800 million for the Dems versus $600 for the Repubs. What is this guy complaining about?
Secret donors? WTF? Even the CIA can’t keep many things a secret for very long, yet this dirtbag and Pelosi claim that all sorts of “secret donors” are pouring huge sums into campaigns to tilt the playing field. Who? Blank screen, of course, yet this idiot claims that secret donors are funneling money to the Repubs by a 2-1 margin. Where’s his scorecard for that outlandish statement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st October 2010 at 12:16 am
TTT - The Tucson Torch says:
Kill Bill
Name some judicial decisions that would place Scalia, Roberts, and Alito in the “Federalist, ie. big government” camp. Try to be specific. We look forward to your contribution to enlighten our knowledge. Look forward to your response.
Oh, you might want to ask Admin for a “contributor status.” Your response to my request is surely worthy of a discussion article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st October 2010 at 12:28 am
admin says:
TTT
The key point isn’t whether the Dems or Pubs get more money. It is that they are then the slaves of the people/unions/corporations who funneled the money to them.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
31st October 2010 at 8:52 am
MuckAbout says:
‘morning Smoke:
You are absolutely correct in all respects. I stand partially corrected. The overall stance of the Supreme’s has been, for the most part, morally centered to reflect (mostly) what the general public considers to be appropriate for the times. (There are exceptions to everything).
Corporations, of any stripe, have long enjoyed the rights and privileges of an autonomous entity (legally able to enter contracts, enforce them in court, pay bills, et al -EXCEPT THEY CAN’T VOTE).
So I still say a long precedent of legal history has been destroyed by the Court, bit at a time (see above correction) , that of corporate none-privilege of voting.
If they can’t vote (what good would it do GE or Intel to cast one vote each in an election? Ha!) then the Court is, little by little, letting them BUY votes. Much more effective..
I agree with Killer Billy too.. The voting records of the Court are available and I’ll if I can dig ‘em up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st October 2010 at 9:00 am
Dave says:
When I go to vote tomorrow, what are the chances that I will see General Electric, Chesapeake Energy, Altria, UAW, etc. in the booth next to me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st October 2010 at 12:46 pm
admin says:
Dave
Don’t worry. GE made the electronics of your voting machine. Your vote has already been cast.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st October 2010 at 12:54 pm