End dark money role in political campaigns

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 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 an $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 life 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 the 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 v. 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 further and requires the 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.

The Central Wisconsin Publications Editorial Board consists of publisher Kris O’Leary and editor Brian Wilson.