Why billionaires want to hide their campaign contributions

The influence of billionaire dark money groups has dramatically expanded to every level of government ever since the Supreme Court ruling on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" rel="nofollow">Citizens United</a>. The high court decision allowed outside organizations like corporations and trade associations to spend unlimited money on political campaigns.<br /><br />Dark money groups are nonprofits allowed to fund campaigns without disclosing donors to anybody. In the last election cycle, they spent over $400 million.  The Americans for Prosperity super PAC, the <strike><a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2011/10/bombshell-kochs-sold-oil-equipment-to.html" rel="nofollow">Benedict Arnold</a></strike> Koch brothers political slush fund,  <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000024046&cycle=2012" rel="nofollow">directly spent at least $36 million in the 2012 election alone</a>. The group <a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/10/Kochs-illegal-campaign-finance-network-exposed.html" rel="nofollow">contributed money to other dark money organizations</a> that poured money into elections as well.<br /><br />Billionaires hide donations in these shady organizations so voters don't know where the funding comes from.  Fact is, when workers learn where the shady campaign money comes from -- and what it's actually pushing into law -- the billionaires lose.<br /><br />The Koch brothers' fund poured over $15 million into advertising for a 2012 anti-worker California referendum.  But, because workers were aware of how devastating the measure was, millions of workers came out to crush the measure at the polls -- <a href="http://teamsternation.blogspot.com/2013/10/Kochs-illegal-campaign-finance-network-exposed.html">including over 25,000 Teamsters voting for the first time</a>.<br /><br />Even in campaigns as small as city council elections, the Koch influence is real.  In Coralville, Iowa, a town with fewer than 20,000 people, Koch volunteers have been blanketing the town in flyers.  But <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/us/politics/koch-group-has-ambitions-in-small-races.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp" rel="nofollow">local workers are having none of it</a>. Reports the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/us/politics/koch-group-has-ambitions-in-small-races.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&">New York Times</a>,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div itemprop="articleBody">Americans for Prosperity seems to be winning few adherents here, or at least anyone willing to admit so publicly. Thumbing through a survey at Kathyl Jogerst’s door on a rainy afternoon last week, John Sevier, a 22-year-old volunteer with Americans for Prosperity, started a question to her by saying the City Council had moved $5 million out of the school district budget. </div></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div itemprop="articleBody"> </div><div itemprop="articleBody">Ms. Jogerst, 61, cut him off.  “No, they didn’t,” she said. “I know the agenda with your group.” </div></blockquote>It is important to know the truth about where this group <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/05/13/top-hard-money-donors/" rel="nofollow">and others like it </a>come from.  After all, once people are aware of the truth, no amount of billionaire cash can change their minds.

campaign finance Citizens United Kochs Why billionaires want to hide their campaign contributions

The influence of billionaire dark money groups has dramatically expanded to every level of government ever since the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. The high court decision allowed outside organizations like corporations and trade associatio…

Read more »

Shareholders to SEC: Expose corporate "dark money" in politics

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9oDPorGc8nJk_GlB7dZOsE6XLXnudoAdZd0AS3NwcSxvhiryvg0j0amMt-4ZuWG6jdsvAyD-6Mz5yQvaxGTLEnrNjSQNsnbXKwx-JYYsuB7GIGjyryBexVrk1sABmfKNqsnD-6VkjHGMT/s1600/expose-the-dark-money-final.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="121" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9oDPorGc8nJk_GlB7dZOsE6XLXnudoAdZd0AS3NwcSxvhiryvg0j0amMt-4ZuWG6jdsvAyD-6Mz5yQvaxGTLEnrNjSQNsnbXKwx-JYYsuB7GIGjyryBexVrk1sABmfKNqsnD-6VkjHGMT/s200/expose-the-dark-money-final.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Wouldn't it be nice to know how much of your money is being spent to elect anti-worker politicians to office?<br /><br />If you have any retirement savings, you probably own stock in a public corporation. And the CEOs of those corporations can spend your money however they wish on politics -- without telling you.<br /><br />Since the Supreme Court's 2010 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission">Citizens United decision</a>, corporations have been pouring millions of dollars into shadowy groups to influence elections. In the 2012 election, up to $400 million was funneled into these "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money">dark money</a>" groups -- that's 500 percent more than in the previous presidential election before Citizens United.<br /><br />More often than not, that corporate money is being spent to elect anti-worker candidates to public office.<br /><br />A <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/06/17/the-sec-and-dark-political-money/" rel="nofollow">new SEC rule being considered</a> would require publicly traded companies to disclose to shareholders the corporate funds spent on political campaigns.<br /><br />Supporters of the new rule, led by <a href="http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=183">Public Citizen</a>, held an event in Washington yesterday where Sen. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren" rel="nofollow">Elizabeth Warren</a> (D-Mass.) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/elizabeth-warren-corporate-disclosure_n_4179098.html?utm_hp_ref=politics" rel="nofollow">urged the SEC to shine a light on the "dark money"</a> spent by corporations:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">We don't have to have legislation for the SEC to do the right thing. They have the power to do the right thing right now. There is no reason for saying a corporation wants to be able to spend shareholders' money and not tell shareholders how that money is being spent.</blockquote>Advocates for transparency in corporate political spending are also supporting the <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s824">Shareholder Protection Act</a>, legislation introduced by Sen. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Menendez" rel="nofollow">Robert Menendez</a> (D-N.J.) to force the SEC to enact a political disclosure rule. Menendez was also at yesterday's event and said the SEC does not need the legislation to write the new rule now.<br /><br /><div> Law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy wrote in the <em><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-torres-corporate-funding-politics-20131030,0,5258845.story#axzz2j8kHEJIQ" rel="nofollow">Los Angeles Times</a></em>:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">There is no rule at the SEC that requires public companies to tell their shareholders what they are up to in partisan elections. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">If the law of the land allows corporations to spend unlimited money on politics, investors deserve to know when, why and how much.</blockquote><div></div><div>As the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/10/29/sec-poised-to-improve-political-spending-transparency/" rel="nofollow">Sunlight Foundation observes</a>, the recent government shutdown was just one symptom of the dysfunction sewn by the dark money infecting DC -- all in the interests of right-wing fanatics and their corporate sponsors: </div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Not all that ails our democracy can be blamed on the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, but $1.2 billion in spending by outside groups—at least $300 million of that from undisclosed donors—doesn’t help create a working democracy.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Legislation such as the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/09/house-democrats-introduce-disclose-2012/">DISCLOSE</a> Act is still the best chance at comprehensive disclosure of all dark money. But an SEC rule will result in greater accountability by companies that decide to spend money on politics, it will inform investors about how a company spends its profits, and it will help the public identify the messenger behind many of the political ads they see.</blockquote><div>A new SEC rule wouldn't solve all of our problems. It probably won't even reduce corporate political spending all that much. But it would be a nice change from the secrecy that shrouds political spending. </div><div></div><div>And it will give us a chance to hold CEOs accountable when they spend money on politicians who attack working people.</div>

Citizens United dark money SEC Sen. Elizabeth Warren Shareholders to SEC: Expose corporate "dark money" in politics

Wouldn't it be nice to know how much of your money is being spent to elect anti-worker politicians to office?If you have any retirement savings, you probably own stock in a public corporation. And the CEOs of those corporations can spend your money h…

Read more »

Corporate America wants even more freedom to buy elections

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://act.rootsaction.org/images/we-the-corporations-citizens-united.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="107" src="http://act.rootsaction.org/images/we-the-corporations-citizens-united.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>An upcoming Supreme Court case could make it a lot easier for anti-worker billionaires to buy elections -- not that it's exactly difficult for them to do so already.<br /><br />It seems the 2010 <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" rel="nofollow">Citizens United</a></em> decision declaring money is speech and flooding our democracy with corporate cash just isn't enough. <em>McCutcheon v. FEC</em> could allow the super-rich to pour millions of dollars <em>directly</em> into the campaign coffers of their preferred candidates.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-segal/millennials-vs-millionair_b_4036342.html" rel="nofollow">Huffington Post explains</a>:<em> </em><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">An Alabama millionaire named Shaun McCutcheon is challenging a long-standing law on how much money individual donors can give directly to candidates and party committees. If Mr. McCutcheon wins his case, a single wealthy individual could give a total of more than $2.4 million to his or her favorite candidates, and another million-plus dollars to the party committee of their choice - for a total of 3.5 million dollars.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Mr. McCutcheon claims money is speech and that any legislative measure which hinders his dollar offends "liberty." But irrespective of the patriotic rhetoric, what McCutcheon is really suing for is the right to buy elections. Because 93 percent of the time, the candidate who raises the most money, wins.</blockquote>Call it Citizens United II. Except this time corporations and billionaires want even more freedom to rig elections, Wall Street-style. <br /><br />According to <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission-the-next-citizens-united/" rel="nofollow">Constitution Daily</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">In 2010, the Supreme Court delivered its controversial 5-4 decision in <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>, which set the stage for enormous sums of money to be spent in elections through super PACs and other independent entities.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">On Tuesday, October 8—less than three years after deciding <i>Citizens United—</i>the Supreme Court will hear arguments in <i>McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission</i>, a case which has the potential to flood millions of dollars more into United States elections—and this time, directly into the coffers of candidates for elected office.</blockquote>This <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/assets_c/2013/09/mccutcheonmultiplying-11360.html" rel="nofollow">graphic</a> from the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/" rel="nofollow">Center for Responsive Politics</a> shows <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/mccutcheons-multiplying-effect-why.html" rel="nofollow">what's at stake in the McCutcheon case</a>. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McCutcheon, it would have a multiplying effect on the impact of wealthy donors:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">One of the first things that would surely happen without overall limits would be a wave of newly created PACs focused on specific candidates' campaigns, which would allow donors to give $5,000 to any number of committees that would then give the money directly to the candidates.   </blockquote>In 2012, <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/24/citizens-united-ruling-accounts-for-78-percent-of-2012-election-spending/" rel="nofollow">78 percent of election spending</a> was attributed to the massive influx of outside money that <em>Citizens United</em> injected into the political process. That's <a href="http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16530772-citizen-united-ruling-opened-door-to-933-million-in-new-election-spending?lite" rel="nofollow">$933 million</a> more in political spending.<br /><br />And in states like <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/11/1193246/-Buying-Elections-Campaign-Spending-TRIPLES-Since-Citizens-United-If-You-Can-t-Win-Cheat" rel="nofollow">Wisconsin, campaign spending has tripled</a> since <em>Citizens United</em>. The recall election against union-busting Gov. Scott Walker was the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/07/citizens-united-helped-scott-walker-win-wisconsin" rel="nofollow">most expensive election in Wisconsin's history</a>, with Walker raising over $30.5 million -- seven times more than his opponent.<br /><br /><em>McCutcheon v. FEC</em> threatens to accelerate the damage that <em>Citizens United</em> has already done to our democracy. While arguments in the case will be heard tomorrow in front of the Supreme Court, <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=13344093&notoc=1" rel="nofollow">hundreds of workers, labor activists and others will be outside the Court rallying against big money in politics</a>. <br /><br />As a wealthy GOP backer, McCutcheon argues that limiting individuals' campaign donations is a restriction on their free speech. But for most people, the biggest limitation on their campaign contributions is their wallets. It's too bad then that McCutcheon isn't trying to overturn economic inequality instead of campaign finance restrictions.<br /><br />Citizens United and McCutcheon are leading a national conspiracy to make corporations into people in the eyes of the law. Of course, if corporations are "people," then real people like us are made to be less than people in our political system.

Citizens United corporate personhood super PAC supreme court Corporate America wants even more freedom to buy elections

An upcoming Supreme Court case could make it a lot easier for anti-worker billionaires to buy elections -- not that it's exactly difficult for them to do so already.It seems the 2010 Citizens United decision declaring money is speech and flooding our…

Read more »