– Editorial – - End dark money role in political campaigns
By Editorial Board
People need to know who is paying for their politicians.
It is time to end anonymous dark money donations and give full disclosure for who is bankrolling candidates, at all levels of government, from national office to school boards and town halls.
Beyond the campaigns themselves, groups involved with election efforts should also be obligated to reveal their donor lists, so that voters may have full transparency as to who is supporting a political candidate and what benefit those individuals hope to gain by this.
Modern statewide and national elections are expensive. There are armies of workers and volunteers. There are coordinated advertising campaigns across media platforms. There are travel expenses, and the costs for renting facilities for rallies and events.
All of these cost money and ultimately, someone needs to pay the bills. While politicians like to brag about their grassroots support, and the large numbers of average citizens who send in their $10 and $20 donations, the reality is, that a relatively small number of deep-pocketed donors are the ones financing elections.
A fundamental reality through all parts of society, is that on a broad scale, the person paying the bills calls the shots. This is true in the workplace, in home life and in politics.
Political donation checks involving multiple zeros on the end, are not driven by patriotic idealism, but are calculated business decisions, with a transactional base. This is not a new concept. The ancient Romans even had a phrase, “quid pro quo,” literally meaning, “something for something.”
“Follow the money” is the first lesson given for any would-be investigator, whether it is in the crime-of-the-week television drama, or someone attempting to figure out who is footing the bill for a suspiciously well-funded “grassroots” political effort.
Those three simple words are at the heart of efforts to combat the inherently negative impacts that dark money brings to election campaigns, at all levels.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case “No on E vs. Chiu,” which strikes at the heart of providing openness to allow voters to follow the money and make decisions based on what they find. Under California law, certain political advertisements run by a committee must name the committee’s top contributors.
The city and county of San Francisco takes that a step farther, and requires that disclosure of the contributors to those contributors. The federal lawsuit is seeking to keep secret from voters, the money behind political campaigns.
Funneling money to election efforts through shell organizations to hide the initial source of the funding is inherently suspect, whatever the intended goal. Opponents of the San Francisco rules, argue that this subversive and shadowy activity is protected under the First Amendment. In this argument, they wish to have their proverbial cake and eat it too, insisting that they are entitled to speak, but at the same time, hiding from any of the consequences of their speech.
This is a fundamental subversion of the founder’s intent of the First Amendment.
Voters make the best decisions when they are given all the information. This includes knowing who is bankrolling a cause, campaign or political party.
Voters need to know who is paying for their politicians.
Members of the Courier Sentinel editorial board include publisher Carol O’Leary, general manager Kris O’Leary and Star News editor Brian Wilson.
