CONCORD, N.H. -- As the tenth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision approaches, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said the nation's "broken" campaign-finance system has stopped Congress from fixing the issue of surprise medical billing.

As Shaheen recalled, lawmakers had been working on making sure that patients don't get sticker shock from their medical bills, when two huge, Wall Street private-equity firms poured $50 million into ads that misled and confused the public. Shaheen said a group with an innocent-sounding name -- Doctor Patient Unity -- was making scary claims about possible impacts on patients.

"Turns out, it wasn't concerned about patients at all," she said. "What they were concerned about was the bottom line of two private-equity companies who had invested in doctors that specialized in surprise billing. And the voters had no idea."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, groups have spent $1 billion of so-called "dark money," hiding donors' identities, since the verdict in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

Supporters defend the court's decision, however, saying that political speech, including ads, should be protected by the First Amendment.

A report from the watchdog group Public Citizen found that the top 25 donors are responsible for nearly half of all contributions to super PACs.

Since being enabled by Citizens United and similar decisions, Shaheen said, their influence is stopping Congress from doing what the public wants and needs.

"This dishonest campaign around surprise medical billing is 'Exhibit A' in how broken our campaign-finance system is - the confusion, the misinformation and the destruction that happens because of Citizens United," she added.

A bill that would require disclosure of dark-money sources has passed the U.S. House, but is being blocked from discussion by Republican leadership in the Senate.

Polls show more than three-quarters of Americans would like to see Citizens United overturned. The tenth anniversary of the decision is Tues., Jan. 21.



get more stories like this via email

Campaign-finance watchdog groups are standing up in favor of Washington's disclosure law in court. Facebook parent company Meta has challenged the constitutionality of the state's disclosure law, which requires ad sellers to keep records of how much buyers paid and who the ad targeted. Meta has called the law burdensome on free speech and nearly impossible to comply with.

Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy with Campaign Legal Center, said her organization and other election oversight groups have filed a brief weighing in favor of Washington's disclosure law.

"To discuss the huge public interest in electoral-disclosure laws like Washington and to outline the many challenges that the move to online political advertising has begun to pose for democratic discourse and voting in elections," she explained.

In 2022, Washington state filed a $25-million penalty against Meta for more than 800 violations of the campaign transparency law. The law has been on the state's books since 1972. Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

While Meta has argued the law is burdensome, there is evidence that may not be the case, Malloy said.

"The state trial court took a look at the record and said actually, you know, Meta collects all this information that it claims is so voluminous and burdensome anyway in the ordinary course of its business," she continued. "It just doesn't want to turn over the information."

Malloy added the campaign disclosure law shines a light on the basic information voters need to cast a meaningful ballot, and that it can be very hard to assess an ad when it's coming from an anonymous source.

"Time after time, we see that if voters know who is funding the ad - they know that the NRA is funding the ad as opposed to the Environmental Protection Fund - they are very, very able to better assess the credibility and biases of the speaker of the advertising," Malloy said.

Meta's challenge to the law is currently before a Washington state appeals court.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for "clean" elections in Maine are gearing up for a November ballot referendum that would ban foreign government spending in state elections.

The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill to enact a ban with broad bipartisan support, but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills, who said the bill's language raised First Amendment concerns.

Kaitlyn LaCasse, a campaigner for Protect Maine Elections, said the ban makes sense to voters.

"This campaign is really driven by the grit and determination and grassroots support of Maine voters," she said, "but our opponents will have tens of millions of dollars."

Companies from Canada and Spain are already spending some of that money on statewide television advertisements opposing a public takeover of two New England-based power companies.

LaCasse said more than 80,000 signatures have been collected to place the ban proposal on the November ballot.

Advocates for "clean" elections suffered another setback this session with the repeal of a recently enacted ban on corporate campaign contributions to legislators. Critics said the ban didn't go far enough, and that money could still flow to political action committees.

Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, called it "a step backwards."

"We had over 600 letters go to legislators from their constituents protesting the repeal of the corporate campaign contribution ban," she said, "and it made a big difference."

Keller said the bill repealing the ban does direct the Maine Ethics Commission to come back with a new bill that makes clearer the distinction where corporate contributions are allowed in Maine elections, while attempting to preserve the original aim of the ban.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers in Maine are considering legislation to allow candidates seeking county level offices to receive taxpayer funds under the Maine Clean Election Act.

The landmark 1996 law was the first in the nation to create a voluntary program of full public financing for gubernatorial, state senate and state representative campaigns.

Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said the bill is needed as outside spending on county level candidates is increasing, especially for sheriff races.

"It's especially important that people can trust that those officials are not biased and are not going to be partial to donors," Keller asserted.

The bill has drawn both bipartisan support and criticism with some lawmakers saying the tax dollars would be unevenly distributed to counties. Keller argued while the bill is not a perfect solution it helps to better ensure elections are determined by voters and not donors.

While some lawmakers are hoping to expand Maine's Clean Election Act, others are working to amend it by repealing a ban on corporate contributions. Critics of the ban say it does not go far enough and money can still flow to political parties and their political action committees. Keller recommended rather than repeal the ban, lawmakers should work to strengthen it.

"It's really upsetting to see after years of Maine being a leader on campaign finance reform that we might actually move backwards this session," Keller stated.

Corporate donations were the largest source of spending in Maine's 2020 election cycle, including some from foreign-owned companies. Federal law and 22 other states prohibit corporate contributions to candidates.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email