Dark money growing in local politics

Dark money has flooded presidential and congressional races since 2010, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that allowed issue advocacy groups to spend money in political campaigns.

A study published last month by New York University’s Brennan Center For Justice found dark money’s influence is growing in local politics, too. In a study of six states, not including Georgia, Brennan found a 38 percent increase of dark money in local and state races since 2004.

The study’s authors said dark money poses “special dangers” at the state and local levels because “sources often harbour a narrow, direct economic interest” in the result.

“In relatively low-cost elections ... it is easy for dark money to dominate with unaccountable messages that voters cannot meaningfully evaluate,” the authors wrote.

Dark money is popular with corporations and individuals who don’t want to be associated with a controversial issue or unpopular candidate, said University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.

“It’s the way to go if you don’t want your name attached to something,” Bullock said.

Michael Kang, an Emory law professor who has written about election law, said the problem with dark money is that it makes credibility judgments more difficult for voters.

The organizations must report broad categories of spending to the IRS, he said, but that isn’t “timely or helpful to people interested in disclosure.”

Lee’s messaging suffered credibility issues even without voters knowing all the sources of money, said Kerwin Swint, chairman of Kennesaw State’s Political Science Department.

The chairman’s image was inextricably linked to Cobb’s business establishment, even before he pushed through the $400 million public investment in SunTrust Park, which became the centerpiece of Boyce’s grass-roots campaign. And Lee favored other controversial big-ticket projects, like the $500 million bus rapid transit proposal, that conflicted with many of the county’s rank-and-file conservatives.

“You have to be a credible messenger, and a lot of people by this time didn’t think Tim Lee was,” Swint said. “Some of the personal things, the name calling ... didn’t resonate.”