Aubrey Swanson

Rhetoric and Civic Life

Persuasive Policy Essay

Protect Americans, Not Donors

Introduction
The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court
decision has significantly impacted campaign fundraising. The Supreme Court ruled that
money is a form of free speech; therefore limitations on donations from groups were
ruled unconstitutional. Thus, the super-Political Action Committee era has formed. Super
PACs endorse candidates indirectly and allow for unlimited donations, but those
donations must be disclosed to the public.
Dark money is the term given to the funds given toward electoral campaigns
through non-profits and unions that do not have to disclose their donors. The problem
America faces with undisclosed funding exists because there is no transparency of
donation funds from unions and non-profit organizations. Because non-profit
organizations qualify as social welfare, under 501(c)4 of the tax code, they are not
required to disclose who donated. This is a loophole for organizations that unfairly
protect their donors. Under tax law, being a non-profit organization is their main purpose.
However, some would argue that these organizations exist solely to raise money for
campaigns. The Citizens United decision was not intended to create a way for secret
donors to give money. The Citizens decision was not intended to corrupt political
campaigns. The Citizens United decision was not intended to keep Americans in the dark.
It was intended to protect the rights within the First Amendment. Yet somehow, the result
has disrupted the democratic fundamental core values that this nation is based upon.

Americans do not trust the politicians because they believe that Washington, D.C.
is corrupt. If electoral money transactions in politics were transparent, Americans may
put more faith and attention into the government and its elected officials as a whole. The
act of political power being given up for the American people would have a profound
impact on how the public views politics. Politicians have a bad reputation of being power
hungry for selfish reasons, rather than for the betterment of American society. President
Obama should use his power to issue an executive order so that election funds that
remain secret can be disclosed to the public. The public deserves to know who is
influencing their decision-making. Secrecy in campaign funding is a threat to democracy,
which is a rooted foundational principal important to many Americans.

Problem
The amount of trust that Americans put in their government varies from
generation to generation its due to its experiences. Now, the average trust in government
is at a low of 24% (Pew Research Center). Suspicion of the government has been a huge
theme of public opinion since the Watergate Scandal. The politicians who get the most
attention in the media are the ones who screw up and the ones who break the law.
Because Americans only hear about the corrupt filled Congress, they struggle to trust it.
More could get done if the elected officials passed laws to gain trust from the
public. If Americans see that government officials will do anything to gain trust,
including a decrease in their power, more Americans may vote and begin to participate in
politics. Gaining trust from constituents and the general public should be a priority to
office holders. But instead, office holders do what they can for them to gain power.

Re-election is often the most important goal for congressmen and

congresswomen. Without re-election, it is unlikely for a representative to gain influence
and initiate successful legislation. Influence in congress is gained by experience and
creating a good reputation for the party leaders. Re-election leads to the goal that the
public thinks representatives are there for in the first place, to make good policy.
Therefore, re-election and fundraising for the next campaign serve as priority to
representatives and office holders. Representatives should focus on the work that they
complete in Washington D.C., instead of focusing on the next campaign. The dependency
on money in campaigning makes the entire process unclear for the average citizen to
analyze. If transparency of all campaign funding became policy, the election process
would become simplified and truthful.
Americans hold a core value of democracy. In order to hold truly democratic
elections for representation, Americans should have the right to know who is trying to
persuade them. Transparency can provide truth to Americans. Voting choices should be
based off of truth; therefore voters should know who is trying to influence the election.
Without transparency, there could be speculation that contributions effect the decisions an
office holder makes. Does the office holder serve its donors or the American people?
How will analysts and the public be able to tell if elected officials and non-profits are
connected if election funds are not disclosed? If dark money remains undisclosed, money
will eventually equal power. That is not democracy. Each citizen is given one vote. The
public has the right to know who funded what so that they can detect corruption.
Corruption could become a significant problem if so much secrecy continues to surround
such large donations.

The 2012 election had a sharp increase in spending compared to past elections,
especially when analyzing the amount of anonymously donated money. Around 400
million dollars of dark money was donated towards the 2012 election (Blumenthal, Paul).
Since the Citizens United decision, donations from non-profits have skyrocketed. The
amount of money spent by groups with dark money is only disclosed to the Federal
Election Commission when an ad is run within 60 days of the election, or if it explicitly
advocates a vote for or against a candidate. These rules are useless, because it is not
difficult to abide by them. Advertisements can clearly indicate who to vote for indirectly.
The reported amount of dark money tripled in 2012 since the 2008 election (Blumenthal,
Paul). The use of dark money is a problem that will keep growing.
There is a lot of money in politics, and this is unavoidable. The American people
know that there is too much money in politics. But do the American people know how
much anonymous money can be put toward an election? Transparency is the key to
finding trust from the American people.

What is Not Working?

Laws to disclose dark money donors are unlikely to pass in Congress. With a
gridlocked Congress, they are likely to disagree on issues for the sake of disagreeing. A
disclosure bill is unlikely to pass because representatives are unwilling to disclose
information about their own campaign funds. Representatives in Congress have
benefitted from dark money, and they do not want to take away power from themselves.
It does not make sense for congressmen to vote on a bill that would diminish their own
influence. It is difficult to convince legislators up for reelection to alter the system that

got them elected in the first place (Billings).The United States government fails to
protect citizens rights in this situation, because of the flaws in Americas democratic
republic. Flaws in a republic exist because representatives have to look out for their
constituents and themselves.
Some have speculated that limiting the amount of money being poured into
political campaigns would fix the problem. But limiting the amount of money would not
ever pass anywhere. The Supreme Court would shoot it down because money is seen as a
form of free speech in the U.S. justice system. Limiting money donations further would
either cause more problems in campaigns or it would just reorganize the distribution of
money. The electoral effect would probably remain similar to its current state.
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending
in Elections Act) is a bill that serves as an example for a new policy to disclose all
election donations. It has been proposed to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Democratic Representative Chris van Hollen and Democratic Senator Charles Schumer
introduced the bill. The bill would force disclosure of donors when groups engage in
more than $10,000 in spending. This includes non-profit groups and unions. This act
closes a lot of loopholes for groups to use dark money in unjust ways. The proposed
DISCLOSE Act fixes the problems present in the system, but it is unlikely to succeed in
Congress any time within the next few years.
There have been many ways to propose change after the Citizens United decision.
Not all of these proposals will work to fix the existing problem. Making change through
Congress has a slim chance with the current party balance, even with reasonable bills like
the DISCLOSE Act. This issue is difficult due to its political nature. As Avram Billing

from The Atlantic stated, Of course, Congress needs to be part of the process of
increasing disclosure. But as government reformers know, it is difficult to convince
legislators up for reelection to alter the system that got them elected in the first place.

Proposed Policy Change

If President Obama made an executive order concerning the transparency of dark
money, Americans would have more trust in the politicians and their efficiency. Going to
the chief executive is the best and fastest way to make a difference. Because President
Obama cannot run for re-election, his political career would not be jeopardized by this
executive order. Politically, now is the time for Obama to make a decision. He is quoted
to have said that dark money is, a threat to our democracy. An executive order would
have a faster impact than if Congress tried to pass a bill. The transaction costs are too
high for Congress to consider a bill and have it passed in a timely fashion.
The constitutionality of executive orders has been debated. In the United States
Constitution Article II Section 1, the first clause gives the office of the president the
executive power. The office of the president also has the power to, Take Care that the
laws be faithfully executed, stated in Article II Section 3 Clause 5. This gives the office
of the presidency the power to enforce laws. One way that President Obama could
enforce the disclosing law would be to request that the Federal Election Committee to
require disclaimers to actually reveal who is funding the organization at the end of an
advertisement (Billing). One of the most important sources of executive power derives
from precedent. Executive orders are allowed and accepted because presidents have done
it in the past. Some executive orders have arguably overstretched the bounds of

presidential power. Checks and balances are fundamental to the operations of the United
States government. This decision to disclose donors, however, is aimed at expanding
rights of citizens of the United States. It is granting power to the people, not expanding
specifically the presidents influence in governmental operations. U.S. Supreme Court is
in favor of disclosed campaign spending as well. The court noted that transparency
allows voters to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers
and messages (Keegan). Because the executive and judicial branches hold similar
positions on the issue, legal challenges would be hopeless. Particular donors should not
be protected under law more than citizens who do not donate or cannot donate. Citizens
should have the right to know who is trying to influence their vote, so they can make
truthful judgments.
The continuation of campaigns using dark money has great potential to corrupt
American politics. Theres no stopping the monetary growth in elections. Money has
been ruled as a form of free speech in the Supreme Court. But undisclosed election
funding is detrimental to the trustworthiness of the United States government system.
There is not a valid reason to keep this a secret from the American people. Those in favor
of keeping some donations secret believe that donors have the right to donate money
anonymously. The protection of the donors should not be the main concern for justice,
because the rights of all American citizens triumph.

Conclusion
As Obama put it in his 2015 State of the Union, A better politics is one where we
spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter, and spend

more time lifting young people up, with a sense of purpose and possibility, and asking
them to join in the great mission of building America. If American politics werent seen
as corrupt, then Americans would put more faith into their elected officials. Elected
officials shouldnt be there to protect their own interests, but to protect the interests of the
American people. Americans are hesitant to trust their representatives because of the
campaign funding secrets that they keep from the public. If election funding were fully
disclosed, it would convey a message to the public that the American people are more
important than the few non-profit and union donors who want to anonymously aid
campaigns. Transparency of election funding is only a start. If an executive order is used
to disclose the sources of dark money in campaigns, it can grow into trust of other areas
of the politics and government from the American people.

Works Cited
Blumenthal, Paul. "'Dark Money' In 2012 Election Tops $400 Million, 10 Candidates
Outspent By Groups With Undisclosed Donors." Huffington Post: Politics.
Huffington Post, 11 Nov. 2012. Web.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/dark-money-2012-election-400million_n_2065689.html>.
Billing, Amrav. "How Obama Can Shed Light on Dark Money Without Congress." The
Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Web.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/how-obama-can-help-fixbig-money-disclosure-without-congress/361485/>.
Dunbar, John. "The 'Citizens United' Decision and Why It Matters." Center for Public
Integrity. Center for Public Integrity, 18 Oct. 2012. Web.
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-andwhy-it-matters>.
Keegan, Michael. "Dont like dark Money in Your Politics? This Guy Could Help Stop
It with a Pen." Reuters. Thompson Reuters, 2 Apr. 2015. Web.
<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/how-obama-could-help-solvethe-dark-money-problem/>.
Prokop, Andrew. "Everything You Need to Know about Super PACs and Dark Money."
Vox: Explain the News. Vox Media, 9 Feb. 2015. Web.
<http://www.vox.com/cards/super-pacs-and-dark-money/is-it-legal-to-spend-darkmoney-on-elections>.

"Public Trust in Government: 1958-2014." Pew Research Center: U.S. Politics and
Policy. Pew Research Center, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. <http://www.peoplepress.org/2014/11/13/public-trust-in-government/>.
Weissman, Robert. "Dark Money Casts a Sinister Shadow Across the Land." Huffington
Post: Politics. The Huffington Post, 2 Mar. 2015. Web.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/dark-money-casts-asinist_b_6786456.html>.