SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dark money
After $16 Billion Election, Nonprofit Tracking Money in Politics Lays Off 1/3 of Staff
"This is an absolutely devastating development on the precipice of the next administration," said one journalist.
Nov 08, 2024
Journalists and other critics of how money influences U.S. politics expressed alarm and disappointment in response to Friday reporting that shortly after the nation's latest election, the research nonprofit OpenSecrets had to lay off a third of its staff.
Citing a current staffer, Politico's Daniel Lippman revealed that OpenSecrets "laid off 10 employees yesterday due to financial difficulties" and "much of the research team were among the casualties, which constituted around a third of the group's total headcount."
According to the Politico Playbook newsletter:
Executive director Hilary Braseth wrote in an email to supporters that "OpenSecrets remains committed to its mission—serving as the trusted authority on money in American politics—but our task has become more difficult as groups have opted to fund a partisan outcome rather than nonpartisan democratic infrastructure."
She said in a subsequent email to Playbook that the layoffs were "a necessary first step to make our organization sustainable," and that she had "no doubt that our team will continue to produce the high-quality data that the public has come to rely on."
With a mission "to serve as the trusted authority on money in American politics," OpenSecrets envisions a country in which citizens "use data on money in politics to create a more vibrant, representative, and responsive democracy."
In response to the layoffs, numerous reporters took to social media on Friday to share how they—like Common Dreams—have used what National Public Radio media correspondent David Folkenflik calledthat "an invaluable resource for many a journalist and researcher—utterly nonpartisan but a source for transparency about money in politics now under financial threat."
"Terrible news!" declaredNerdWallet data journalist Joe Yerardi. "The folks at OpenSecrets have helped me so many times on stories. The [organization] does such vital work."
Other reactions included:
- Wall Street Journal reporter Maggie Severns: "OpenSecrets is an important resource on money in politics, this is terrible to see."
- Politico deputy national editor Zach Montellaro: "This stinks—OpenSecrets is a great resource for campaign finance data and following the money."
- Digiday senior reporter Marty Swant: "Sad news for a critical team that helps shed light on dark money in politics."
- McClatchy and Miami Herald investigative reporter Ben Wieder: "This is such sad news. OpenSecrets is such an important resource for journalists and anyone who cares about money in politics."
- The New Republic breaking news writer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: "This is an absolutely devastating development on the precipice of the next administration."
Republican President-elect Donald Trump—known for "outright scandals and blatant corruption" during his first term—defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris on Election Day earlier this week, . The GOP also seized control of the U.S. Senate and is on track to win a majority in the House of Representatives.
In a Tuesday analysis, OpenSecrets' Albert Serna Jr. and Anna Massoglia detailed how about $16 billion "went to influence federal elections and another $4.6 billion was raised by state candidates, party committees, and ballot measure committees for 2023 and 2024 elections."
The pair also highlighted Tuesday that this cycle "has broken the record for outside spending," with about $4.5 billion from independent groups such as super political action committees; dark money accounted for over $1 billion in total contributions to organizations like super PACs; top donors had outsize influence; and donations to support or defeat various ballot measures have also set "several records."
Jimmy Cloutier, a former OpenSecrets reporting fellow now at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, said Friday in response to the layoffs that "I'm devastated for my former colleagues—and shocked that this news comes just days after the most expensive election in U.S. history."
Investigative journalist Dave Levinthal, who also previously worked for the organization, said that "this is heartbreaking news, not just for us OpenSecrets alums, but anyone who cares about genuinely nonpartisan research and reporting plus political/governmental transparency."
Healthcare Across Borders executive director Jodi Jacobson said Friday that "this is unacceptable and unconscionable and shows how perverse our funding streams are. We can sink over a billion into a political campaign but not fund one of the most critical tools of accountability at a time when we need it most?"
Some responded to the layoff news with calls for donations to OpenSecrets. Filmmaker Adam McKay declared: "Legacy news media has all but blacked out money's outsized control of [government] so this is one of the few places to find out who is bribing your candidate or [representative]. Donate if you can ASAP."
Issue One research director Michael Beckels said: "Care about being able to follow the money in politics? Today would be a good day to donate—or become a monthly donor—OpenSecretsDC, one of the best groups around for understanding the flow of money in state and federal elections."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Tiny State of Maine, a Big Election Day Win Against Dark Money in Politics
"Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board," said the chair of the campaign behind the measure likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nov 06, 2024
As billionaire-backed Republicans dominated U.S. elections on Tuesday, voters in Maine—among the top 10 states in terms of smallest populations—overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to limit political spending, an initiative that could reach the country's top court.
Maine Question 1 targets super political action committees (PACs), dark money groups that, for the most part, are barred from directly contributing to or coordinating with a candidate but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of funds.
Question 1 asked Mainers, "Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"
WMTWreported earlier this year that "the $5,000 contributions cap would only apply to state races, not United States House or Senate races."
As of Wednesday afternoon, the measure had passed 531,573 to 186,707, or 74% to 26%, with 89% of the estimated vote reported, according toThe New York Times.
"When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
"We're grateful to the Maine people for once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system," said Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which collected signatures to get the citizen-initiated measure on the ballot.
"The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption," McCormick added. "Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board."
The campaign highlighted that "some of America's leading constitutional law experts—Laurence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Al Alschuler, and others—have argued that Question 1 is the most immediate pathway to ending super PACs, the biggest source of dark money in elections."
Welcoming the measure's passage, Lessig declared Wednesday that "this is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America."
"We expect this initiative will be challenged," he explained. "But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
As Maine Morning Stardetailed Wednesday:
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of "quid pro quo" corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, only then can Congress regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that contributions to groups making independent expenditures can't corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. That decision essentially created the "super PAC," which can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit, and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The editorial boards of both the Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald backed the ballot measure, with the latter writing last month that "ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures."
"We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America's system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors," the board argued. "If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Trump Dark Money Group Aims Lies at Arab and Jewish American Voters
The group is spending tens of millions of dollars targeting both communities of voters in two battleground states with contradictory messaging designed to discourage them from voting for Kamala Harris.
Oct 21, 2024
In the run-up to the November election, we are witnessing a massive expenditure of “dark money” in a disinformation campaign designed to depress the Arab American vote in Michigan and the American Jewish vote in Pennsylvania.
During the past three election cycles we’ve seen “dark money” play an increasingly important role in U.S. elections. Dark money refers to expenditures from groups that ostensibly operate independently from official campaigns and whose funds need not be reported. We’ve also seen disinformation campaigns before; that is, organized efforts to use deceptive, misleading, or exaggerated claims for political advantage.
A dark money group undertook such an effort in 2020, when it sought to derail Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign with a sizable television ad buy claiming he was too old (despite the fact that the candidate against whom he was running was about the same age), or that he was too radical to win (despite the fact that Sanders had already won most of that year’s primaries and polls showed him beating the expected Republican nominee by a larger margin than any of the other Democrats in the field). What made the effort more dishonest was that the group sponsoring the ads was the Democratic Majority for Israel. They wanted to defeat Sanders because they didn’t trust his more balanced approach to the Middle East. But knowing that argument wouldn’t win over Democratic voters, they never mentioned Israel in their ads—a clear case of using both disinformation and misinformation for a political end.
“What would be the impact of these ads if they were reversed, with Arab American voters targeted with the pro-Palestinian ads and American Jewish voters targeted with the pro-Israel ads?”
That effort’s success encouraged more pro-Israel dark money groups to join the fray in 2022 and 2024, spending well over $100 million in more than a dozen congressional races. Once again, they promoted misleading or exaggerated claims calling into question the character or leadership qualities of the candidates they opposed without ever mentioning that their goal was to defeat those whom they deemed insufficiently pro-Israel.
What we’re seeing in this election is more dark money disinformation, but with a deceptively ingenious twist. A pro-Donald Trump group is spending tens of millions of dollars targeting both Arab American and American Jewish voters in two battleground states, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with contradictory messaging designed to discourage them from voting for the Democratic nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. This effort includes direct mail, and digital ads on social media platforms like: X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook.
Almost daily, Michigan’s Arab Americans voters in precincts of heavy concentration are receiving glossy mailings with messages like: “Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff: Unwavering Support for Israel” or “Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff, the ultimate pro-Israel power couple” or “Kamala Harris and Elissa Slotkin [the Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan]: The proven team we can trust to stand up for the Jewish community.” And targeted video messaging on social media sites saying things like “Kamala Harris stands with Israel.”
Meanwhile, in areas of Pennsylvania where there are heavy concentrations of Jewish voters, homes are receiving messages like: “Kamala Harris will embolden antisemites” or “Donald Trump always stands up for the Jewish people.” And targeted video messaging on social media platforms saying “Kamala Harris will not be silent about human suffering in Gaza” or “Two-faced Kamala Harris: Standing with Palestine and not our ally, Israel.”
These mailings and social media posts are paid for by a dark money group, Future Coalition PAC. Researchers have identified that one of the major donors to this group is Elon Musk, the principal owner of X and a strong supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential bid.
It’s important to note that the videos used in these ads contain Harris speeches in which she, in fact, makes statements that are very supportive of Israel and others in which she expresses sympathy with Palestinians suffering in Gaza or the right of students on campuses to protest injustice. What makes this effort classic disinformation is the selective use of these quotes and the way they are used to make exaggerated claims in an effort to mislead targeted groups of voters, discouraging their support for the Democratic candidate. To look at it in another way, we can ask, “What would be the impact of these ads if they were reversed, with Arab American voters targeted with the pro-Palestinian ads and American Jewish voters targeted with the pro-Israel ads?”
Disinformation has long been a problem in American elections. Now with massive expenditures from dark groups and their ability to use advanced micro-targeting to identify and deceive specific voter groups using their social media behavior, what was a problem has now become a crisis.
I am reminded that on two separate occasions in the last two years a group of Democratic National Committee members tried to get the party to ban the use of dark money in primaries. We warned that allowing billionaire Republican donors to skew our elections with disinformation and misinformation was a threat to our democracy. Both times the party leadership blocked our effort to have a vote on our resolution. Little did we know that just a year later, the very dark money disinformation effort funded by Republican donors about which we warned could very well contribute to upending the campaign of the Democratic nominee for president.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular