The unfettered, unregulated flow of money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals in support of or in opposition to political campaigns is perfectly legal, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling two years ago in a case known as Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission.
Citizens United opened the door for the creation of independent expenditure political action committees, which have become known as “super PACs.”
These powerful PACs are on full display in the 2012 election. Just look at the PACs supporting four of the still-standing GOP hopefuls: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
The total television and radio spending by those four campaigns totaled more than $12.6 million through Jan. 11.
While that’s not chump change, it falls short in comparison with the spending by the super PACs formed to support those five – more than $13.3 million.
More recent data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit, pro-government transparency group, said super PACs had spent $24 million through Jan. 17 in all of the presidential races.
In theory, these political action committees operate independent and without coordination with the political campaigns they support. But does anybody really believe that? In reality the candidates’ campaigns and the PACs that supports them are filled with advisers and aides that have moved back and forth from campaign to PAC or PAC to campaign.
And this isn’t just a Republican tactic. Time magazine reported last week that former White House aide Bill Burton, who served as Barack Obama’s spokesman in the 2008 campaign, has formed a super PAC leading up to the 2012 election. That group expects to raise some $100 million this year.
Voters first got a taste of how dominating and powerful the court-approved PACs can be during the 2010 midterm elections when they spent $454 million to defeat or elect candidates. That represented about 15 percent of the total campaign funding.
In its 5-4 vote in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court majority suggested prompt online reporting of super PAC contributions would ease concerns that the ruling runs counter to the principal of “one person, one vote.”
But two years have passed since the controversial ruling and Congress has yet to legislate a disclosure system to deal with the super PACs.
Voters need more access to information that tells them who is paying for these elections. Voters have the right to know who was behind that negative television ad, whether it’s a corporation, a union or some other wealthy donor.
The Sunlight Foundation has crafted a bill that Congress should consider, a first step in restoring some sanity and transparency to these dark campaigns that are only going to grow in frequency and fervor as the November election draws closer. The bill would:
• Disclose donors who fund campaign expenditures by super PACs.
• Require real-time, online disclosure of all reports in formats that anyone interested could understand.
• When a television or radio ad runs, require disclaimers and identify the primary sources of funding for the ad.
• Require all candidates and committees to file with the Federal Election Commission.
At the very least, voters have the right to know who is paying for these federal election campaigns and advertising.
For better or for worse, the Citizens United ruling is the law of the land and will remain so unless Congress shows the political courage to support a constitutional amendment to reduce corporate influence in elections.
In it’s majority ruling, the high court wrote that, for purposes of establishing a “compelling government interest” of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
In light of the political muscle the super PACs have shown early in this presidential election year, the voters need more than judicial reassurances to secure a level, transparent playing field for campaign funding.
