Amid Flood of Dark Money, Groups Make Simple Request of FEC: 'Do Your Job'
Existing regulations are "woefully inadequate to address today's political environment"
On Tuesday, a coalition of civic and religious organizations, environmentalists, and academics decried the unprecedented flow of "dark money" into the U.S. political process. They submitted comments to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), calling on the agency to do its job.
"Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, each election cycle has seen dramatic changes in the campaign finance environment," the groups declared in comments (pdf) that press the FEC to address critical regulatory shortfalls. "Yet, the rules and regulations of the Federal Election Commission have not kept pace."
They continued, "Today's flood of dark money in federal elections via both electioneering communications and independent expenditures is almost wholly the creation of the Federal Election Commission, and the Commission should take responsibility for correcting this problem."
The groups wrote that Citizens United undoubtedly "opened a floodgate of outside spending. " The FEC's failure to update its rules accordingly—or, in the case of disclosure rules, to defy both the law and the Supreme Court decision itself—has only intensified the problem.
Noting that the cost for the 2016 election cycle is expected to exceed $10 billion, the coalition--which includes Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Media and Democracy, among others--specifically calls for the FEC to update its rules to:
- Reestablish the excellent disclosure regime that had existed before recent erroneous rulemaking by the Commission;
- Strengthen its rule to require that foreign nationals receive written assurances from any organization that conducts electioneering activity that the foreign funds will not be used for campaign purposes;
- Update its coordination rule to ensure unregulated super PACs and other outside electioneering groups are independent of candidate and party committees.
On that last point, the groups stated that the FEC's existing regulation "is woefully inadequate to address today's political environment."
While super PACs—which can solicit unlimited donations and have raised $211 million in this election cycle—are ostensibly independent from the candidates and campaigns they support, watchdogs say the reality tells a much different story.
"Frequently, the coordination between super PACs and their candidates is laughable and the subject of televised comedy acts," the coalition wrote, making it "indisputably obvious" to both the public and election experts that "the lax coordination rules enable candidates to evade the contribution limits by setting up a closely coordinated super PAC."
Furthermore, by essentially throwing up its hands--FEC chief Ann M. Ravel told the New York Times in May that the agency's internal gridlock made it "worse than dysfunctional"--the agency only invites further wrongdoing.
To that end, separate comments also filed Tuesday by pro-democracy groups Democracy 21, and the Campaign Legal Center call on (pdf) the FEC to reject a request from two Democratic PACs that are seeking guidance from the agency itself on how to follow the lead of several GOP super PACs "in breaking a variety of laws through coordinated activities with candidates."
"These super PACs are seeking FEC permission to break the law, as other candidates and committees have done, knowing full well that the Commission will deadlock on the questions, and announcing that they will break the law if they do not get a yes or no answer from the FEC," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, in a press statement.
But, Ryan warned, super PACs "are mistaken...in implying that an FEC deadlock amounts to approval of their proposed lawbreaking. The laws passed by Congress are the laws of the land despite the complete breakdown of campaign finance law enforcement at the FEC, and we will not hesitate to urge the Department of Justice to criminally investigate what would be knowing and willful violations of the law if these groups proceed with their plans."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
On Tuesday, a coalition of civic and religious organizations, environmentalists, and academics decried the unprecedented flow of "dark money" into the U.S. political process. They submitted comments to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), calling on the agency to do its job.
"Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, each election cycle has seen dramatic changes in the campaign finance environment," the groups declared in comments (pdf) that press the FEC to address critical regulatory shortfalls. "Yet, the rules and regulations of the Federal Election Commission have not kept pace."
They continued, "Today's flood of dark money in federal elections via both electioneering communications and independent expenditures is almost wholly the creation of the Federal Election Commission, and the Commission should take responsibility for correcting this problem."
The groups wrote that Citizens United undoubtedly "opened a floodgate of outside spending. " The FEC's failure to update its rules accordingly—or, in the case of disclosure rules, to defy both the law and the Supreme Court decision itself—has only intensified the problem.
Noting that the cost for the 2016 election cycle is expected to exceed $10 billion, the coalition--which includes Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Media and Democracy, among others--specifically calls for the FEC to update its rules to:
- Reestablish the excellent disclosure regime that had existed before recent erroneous rulemaking by the Commission;
- Strengthen its rule to require that foreign nationals receive written assurances from any organization that conducts electioneering activity that the foreign funds will not be used for campaign purposes;
- Update its coordination rule to ensure unregulated super PACs and other outside electioneering groups are independent of candidate and party committees.
On that last point, the groups stated that the FEC's existing regulation "is woefully inadequate to address today's political environment."
While super PACs—which can solicit unlimited donations and have raised $211 million in this election cycle—are ostensibly independent from the candidates and campaigns they support, watchdogs say the reality tells a much different story.
"Frequently, the coordination between super PACs and their candidates is laughable and the subject of televised comedy acts," the coalition wrote, making it "indisputably obvious" to both the public and election experts that "the lax coordination rules enable candidates to evade the contribution limits by setting up a closely coordinated super PAC."
Furthermore, by essentially throwing up its hands--FEC chief Ann M. Ravel told the New York Times in May that the agency's internal gridlock made it "worse than dysfunctional"--the agency only invites further wrongdoing.
To that end, separate comments also filed Tuesday by pro-democracy groups Democracy 21, and the Campaign Legal Center call on (pdf) the FEC to reject a request from two Democratic PACs that are seeking guidance from the agency itself on how to follow the lead of several GOP super PACs "in breaking a variety of laws through coordinated activities with candidates."
"These super PACs are seeking FEC permission to break the law, as other candidates and committees have done, knowing full well that the Commission will deadlock on the questions, and announcing that they will break the law if they do not get a yes or no answer from the FEC," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, in a press statement.
But, Ryan warned, super PACs "are mistaken...in implying that an FEC deadlock amounts to approval of their proposed lawbreaking. The laws passed by Congress are the laws of the land despite the complete breakdown of campaign finance law enforcement at the FEC, and we will not hesitate to urge the Department of Justice to criminally investigate what would be knowing and willful violations of the law if these groups proceed with their plans."
On Tuesday, a coalition of civic and religious organizations, environmentalists, and academics decried the unprecedented flow of "dark money" into the U.S. political process. They submitted comments to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), calling on the agency to do its job.
"Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, each election cycle has seen dramatic changes in the campaign finance environment," the groups declared in comments (pdf) that press the FEC to address critical regulatory shortfalls. "Yet, the rules and regulations of the Federal Election Commission have not kept pace."
They continued, "Today's flood of dark money in federal elections via both electioneering communications and independent expenditures is almost wholly the creation of the Federal Election Commission, and the Commission should take responsibility for correcting this problem."
The groups wrote that Citizens United undoubtedly "opened a floodgate of outside spending. " The FEC's failure to update its rules accordingly—or, in the case of disclosure rules, to defy both the law and the Supreme Court decision itself—has only intensified the problem.
Noting that the cost for the 2016 election cycle is expected to exceed $10 billion, the coalition--which includes Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Media and Democracy, among others--specifically calls for the FEC to update its rules to:
- Reestablish the excellent disclosure regime that had existed before recent erroneous rulemaking by the Commission;
- Strengthen its rule to require that foreign nationals receive written assurances from any organization that conducts electioneering activity that the foreign funds will not be used for campaign purposes;
- Update its coordination rule to ensure unregulated super PACs and other outside electioneering groups are independent of candidate and party committees.
On that last point, the groups stated that the FEC's existing regulation "is woefully inadequate to address today's political environment."
While super PACs—which can solicit unlimited donations and have raised $211 million in this election cycle—are ostensibly independent from the candidates and campaigns they support, watchdogs say the reality tells a much different story.
"Frequently, the coordination between super PACs and their candidates is laughable and the subject of televised comedy acts," the coalition wrote, making it "indisputably obvious" to both the public and election experts that "the lax coordination rules enable candidates to evade the contribution limits by setting up a closely coordinated super PAC."
Furthermore, by essentially throwing up its hands--FEC chief Ann M. Ravel told the New York Times in May that the agency's internal gridlock made it "worse than dysfunctional"--the agency only invites further wrongdoing.
To that end, separate comments also filed Tuesday by pro-democracy groups Democracy 21, and the Campaign Legal Center call on (pdf) the FEC to reject a request from two Democratic PACs that are seeking guidance from the agency itself on how to follow the lead of several GOP super PACs "in breaking a variety of laws through coordinated activities with candidates."
"These super PACs are seeking FEC permission to break the law, as other candidates and committees have done, knowing full well that the Commission will deadlock on the questions, and announcing that they will break the law if they do not get a yes or no answer from the FEC," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, in a press statement.
But, Ryan warned, super PACs "are mistaken...in implying that an FEC deadlock amounts to approval of their proposed lawbreaking. The laws passed by Congress are the laws of the land despite the complete breakdown of campaign finance law enforcement at the FEC, and we will not hesitate to urge the Department of Justice to criminally investigate what would be knowing and willful violations of the law if these groups proceed with their plans."