'Dark money'

The largest known political advocacy donation in American history was uncovered this week by the Lever, ProPublica, and the New York Times. We revealed a reclusive billionaire's covert transfer of $1.6 billion to a political organization run by Republican operative Leonard Leo, who was instrumental in building a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court to ban abortion, obstruct regulations, stymie efforts to combat climate change, and restrict voting rights.
This anonymous donation was presumably fully lawful because it went to a tax-exempt trust that wasn't recorded in any public record or database.
Regardless of your feelings about Leo's cause, we should be able to unite on one overarching nonpartisan principle: such huge quantities of money shouldn't be allowed to sway elections, legislators, court nominations, or public policy.
Unfortunately, these truths are now concealed by anonymity, shell businesses, and shady political organizations because of our antiquated laws. America's political disclosure laws need to be updated, and journalistic organizations in particular should be leading the campaign for change.

The Watergate affair, which served as the first major dark money exposé of the modern era, was discovered in the early 1970s thanks to leaks and shoe-leather investigation by news organizations. That scandal gave rise to the first federal disclosure rules and a heyday for media. The new laws allowed campaign finance reporting to transition from intermittent, random, and dependent on the goodwill of brave whistleblowers to systematic, methodical, and based on mandatory disclosures.

However, a half-century later, the 50-year-old secret money methods have once more
But fifty years later, the secret money tactics of the past are once more accepted. Dark money worth more than $1 billion alone poured into the 2020 elections in America, skirting lax disclosure laws and funding Super Pacs, advertising blitzes, mailers, and door-to-door operations. Reporters and the general public were unaware of the funding sources or the policies being purchased as millions of votes were manipulated.

The circumstance is getting worse as the 2022 election approaches. All of the main Senate and House Super Pacs for the two parties are being funded by secretive dark money organizations that are not required to reveal who their donors are.
These issues are not specific to the campaign setting. Front groups are also influencing public policy, making it impossible for journalists to disclose to voters who is actually sponsoring what. An unidentified funder has used post-election advertisements in recent years to effectively convince lawmakers to weaken historic healthcare legislation intended to do away with so-called "surprise" medical expenditures.

In a similar vein, after spearheading a campaign to support Republicans' refusal to hold a vote on Barack Obama's 2016 high court nominee, Merrick Garland, Leo's network, which is funded entirely anonymously, spent tens of millions of dollars bolstering the nomination campaigns of three conservative supreme court justices.
News organizations can still report on the dwindling segment of the political finance system that still makes public some cash flows to elected officials, lobbyists, and advocacy organizations. And fortunately
News organizations can still report on the dwindling segment of the political finance system that still makes public some cash flows to elected officials, lobbyists, and advocacy organizations. And fortunately, there are sporadic revelations like the Leo leak that offer a momentary peek into the true dynamics behind broad policy decisions.

But for every rare leak, there are dozens of hidden donors who systematically inject increasing amounts of dark money into legislation and electoral campaigns without ever being identified. These donors profit from tainted public policy.
The bad news is that. The good news is that a legislative framework for reform already exists.
Dark money organizations would have to reveal any of its donors who violate any laws under the Disclose Act, which is supported by Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
The Disclose Act, proposed by Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would make shell firms that spend money on elections disclose their owners, force political commercials to list the big funders of their sponsors, and require dark money groups to disclose any donors who give more than $10,000. These regulations would apply to campaigns to influence governmental decisions, including judicial nominations, as well as election-related behavior.
A different Whitehouse bill would also demand donor disclosure from covert organizations that petition the supreme court through amicus papers in order to sway judicial decisions without making it known which billionaire or CEO is on the scale. The Securities and Exchange Commission would finally be able to require huge firms to report their political expenditures in greater detail thanks to other legislation that is now in the works.

Journalists should joyfully support legislation that enable us to inform the people about the actions of their government. In the past, our business has defended open records laws; today, we must do the same in support of new campaign money transparency legislation.
In reality, this entails reporters raising the transparency problem and pressing politicians on where they stand on disclosure legislation rather than minimizing or downplaying the growing influence of dark money that is now influencing every aspect of American public life.

It refers to newspaper editorial boards that support reforming campaign funding laws.

It entails media companies advocating for stricter disclosure regulations at the national, state, and local levels.

It entails that the media sector engages in and, on occasion, takes the initiative in this conflict rather than using objectivity as a cover.
Strong opponents already stand in the way of efforts to modernize campaign finance disclosure laws and shed light on the darkest of dark money. The Disclose Act has been stalled for more than ten years as a result of lobbying by the US Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries, which represent some of the nation's largest dark money spenders.

After spending money to support three of those judges' nomination to the supreme court, the Koch network recently persuaded the conservative majority of the court to overturn a California statute requiring non-profit dark money groups to at least reveal their significant donors to state tax regulators.
Recent efforts by conservative organizations and Republican state attorneys general to stop a proposal requiring businesses to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions have been based on the claim that such disclosures constitute illegal "compelled speech" are a foreshadowing of the defense they may use against new campaign finance transparency legislation.

Alarmingly, some journalists themselves have rejected initiatives to increase transparency. A rule requiring TV and radio stations to disclose ad buys from political entities was fought against before the Federal Election Commission a decade ago by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), which represents the big media companies reaping enormous profits from dark money ads.
The Federal Communications Commission's demands that broadcasters reveal when foreign governments finance content have recently been successfully resisted by the NAB. The NAB is currently advocating for the Disclose Act.

The largest dark-money donation in history was revealed this week, and it should serve as a wake-up call that the status quo must change. In fact, it can change, even within the bounds of the supreme court's own precedents.

While the majority in the famous Citizens United decision, which launched the modern era of big money politics, was unwilling to allow restrictions on political spending, it nonetheless maintained that "government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements."
These conditions must be met immediately in order for the free press to fulfill its essential function and for voters to cast informed ballots.

But the only way that can happen is if media organizations and journalists join the fight for the things they need to do their jobs and the things that we all need to keep our democracy alive.