LAS VEGAS - Unlike water, campaign dollars can flow from the Gulf of Mexico up to Nevada, as witness the several million dollars that have flowed from one wealthy Texas real estate magnate into ads taking aim at Nevada Senator Harry Reid and other Democrats nationwide. His name is Bob Perry and he was a driving force behind the 2004 Swift Boat campaign against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. This year, thanks to the Supreme Court decision that opened the door to nearly unlimited campaign contributions, he's given several million dollars to Karl Rove's political organizations and other groups supporting Reid's opponent, Sharron Angle.

Jesse Zwick of the Washington Independent has covered Perry's political activism.

"$7 million can definitely go a long way putting up ads in a state: that would almost be, you know, the advertising budget of a really strong seven-week campaign in a state."

Zwick says the groups behind much of this season's campaign advertising usually present themselves as representing a broad-based group of voters, but often that's not the case.

"A donation from someone like Mr. Perry shows that a lot of groups can advocate that kind of support while in fact actually receiving its support from a very relatively small number of donors."

He says ad spending can go even further in states with smaller populations, like Nevada. He also notes that while the Swift Boat group was cited by the Federal Election Commission for not properly registering and collecting donations, the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision means that big smear campaigns largely funded by a few individuals or corporations are now totally legitimate.


get more stories like this via email

Undisclosed funding, or "dark money," is pumping into the 2024 election cycle.

Political spending by donors who stay hidden is reaching record highs, according to a report by OpenSecrets.

Author Anna Massoglia - the editorial and investigations manager at Open Secrets - said dark money might be coming from shadowy shell companies or non-profits, and often funds misleading attack ads against candidates from either party.

"When you have dark-money groups fueling this spending," said Massoglia, "the voter may not know what interest the secret donors behind that have in getting a specific candidate elected, a ballot measure passed or any other policy issue."

In 2022, OpenSecrets found that the Conservative Americans PAC spent more than $2.4 million in GOP primary races for U.S. House seats in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona.

They discovered the super PAC was bankrolled by undisclosed American Economic Freedom Alliance and American Prosperity Alliance support prior to the votes.

Supporters of dark money donations argue they are a form of free speech, and in fact courts have often found that political donations are protected by the First Amendment.

Campaign watchdogs argue in return that even if donations are a form of protected speech, nothing stops the government from requiring full disclosure of who the donations are coming from - and without that, campaign advertising becomes inherently deceptive.

Massoglia says it really varies from one state to the next, in terms of which party and which side of the aisle is benefiting more. And, the patchwork of limits and disclosure rules vary greatly across the states.

"In some states, you can actually have 501(c)(4) dark-money groups or shell companies contribute directly to candidates' campaigns," said Massoglia, "which is something that's not allowed at the federal level. They're only allowed to spend in support of the candidate."

Massoglia emphasized that while dark money can come from various sources, it often comes from one type.

She said 501(c)(4) nonprofits are supposed to exist for social welfare purposes, but due to few restrictions on their spending they are able to spend practically unlimited sums on elections without ever disclosing their donors.




get more stories like this via email

Oregon lawmakers took a step toward limiting the impact of money on elections during the legislative session.

Lawmakers passed House Bill 2024, a campaign finance reform package that limits the amount single donors can contribute to campaigns. Limits haven't existed in the state since the 1970s.

Contributions will be capped at $3,300 - per candidate, per election.

House Speaker state Rep. Julie Fahey - D-Eugene - championed the bill.

In her first campaign for office, she faced candidates funded by large donations from wealthy donors - and said the experience inspired her to change the law.

"It really was that first challenging election cycle that cemented in my mind how important it was that we reform our campaign finance system," said Fahey, "in part because we need to make running for office more accessible to brand new candidates like I was."

Oregon voters have shown they're ready for limits on campaign contributions. They wrote them into the the state constitution in 2020.

This year, Honest Elections and the League of Women Voters had collected nearly enough signatures for a measure to put campaign finance reform on the November ballot.

Fahey noted that the bill doesn't just limit contributions.

"We also created new kinds of small donor pacs and membership organization pacs," said Fahey, "that will make sure that we can incentivize the kind of pro-democracy campaigning that we really want to see more of."

Common Cause Oregon Director Kate Titus said these changes have taken effort from a lot of people over a long period time.

"It's such a complex issue, campaign finance reform," said Titus, "and it's one of the toughest ones to fight because it gets at the heart of power in politics. Anyone who gains power through money has the power to resist."

The new campaign finance laws go into effect in 2027.



get more stories like this via email

Maine could become the first state in the nation to provide public funding to candidates seeking the office of district attorney.

Lawmakers are considering the first expansion of the state's Clean Election Act since 1996 to help ensure county-level races are not influenced by wealthy donors.

Anna Kellar, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said local and state law enforcement positions are increasingly gaining national attention and drawing large amounts of out-of-state spending.

"We see this really as a way of ensuring that this part of our justice system is fully accountable to the voters and able to be independent of their campaign donors," Kellar explained.

Kellar contended providing public funding for district attorney races will increase the pool of candidates with diverse career backgrounds, including public defenders. The legislation has passed a committee with bipartisan support.

Maine voters passed the Maine Clean Elections Act as a citizen initiative in 1996, creating a voluntary program of public financing of political campaigns for governor, state Senator and state Representative.

Candidates who participate can accept limited private contributions to start their campaigns but once they receive money from the state's Clean Elections Fund, they can no longer accept private donations.

Kellar argued the law ensures candidates have enough to run viable, fair campaigns.

"What we often see is if there are races where there are both clean elections candidates, they start out on that equal playing field and that also really helps reduce the need for that outside spending," Kellar observed.

Kellar emphasized the public should trust candidates for county-level law enforcement positions, including sheriff and district attorney, are impartial and will create agendas to benefit the public rather than donor's interests. She added Maine's "clean elections" have provided a great blueprint for other states, and wants the legislature to expand the law to ensure the example continues.

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


get more stories like this via email