Shine a light on emerging era of ‘dark money’

It can already be conceded that in the free-for-all that has become the 2016 U.S. presidential race, we will see the most money ever spent in a political cycle. What should not be conceded so easily, however, is the lack of transparency when it comes to contributors to candidates and outside groups that support them.

Yet that is precisely where we appear to be headed, with the growing role of nonprofit 501(c)4 organizations as financial supporters of candidates’ campaigns. Though they are technically supposed to be devoted to promoting what the IRS calls “social welfare,” these nonprofit groups are funneling tens of millions of dollars into campaigns. And here’s the rub: They are not required to disclose who is providing the money.

As voters deserve to know who is buying their candidates, Congress needs to put a stop to these shenanigans now.

Yes, we brought this “race to collect the most money from the richest Americans” on our ourselves with our weak laws, weaker enforcement and unfortunate decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court unleashed unlimited spending with a series of decisions, most notably the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. the FEC, whereby it treated money as the equivalent of speech while granting free speech rights to outside groups and corporations. The end result: well-funded outside groups, or super PACs, spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

More troubling than the billions likely to be spent by super PACs, however, are nonprofit groups who conceal their sources while spending millions to influence outcomes. While not technically connected to any campaign, they will be filling the airwaves with accusations, negative advertisements and factual assertions; all without ever telling voters who furnished the money behind it all.

For example, a nonprofit group supporting Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio has already raised nearly $16 million. The money was primarily used for ads supporting Rubio’s position on a nuclear deal with Iran. The group, Conservative Solutions Project, is a nonprofit that is linked to a similarly named super PAC that is supporting Rubio’s run for president. But unlike the super PAC, Conservative Solutions doesn’t have to disclose its donors.

Rubio is certainly not unique in this type of support. In fact, the senator’s totals may actually be dwarfed by other presidential candidates — including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Nearly every major campaign has outside groups that appear to be created for the express purpose of raising unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen candidate. This hidden, or “dark,” money is becoming an important part of campaigns.

And so far, instead of fixing this problem, our lawmakers (politicians) are fighting to keep the sources of this money hidden. Last month, the House Appropriations Committee wrote a provision that would prevent the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from forcing public companies to disclose their political spending. A second provision would bar the Internal Revenue Service from limiting the political spending of these alleged “social welfare” groups.

The irony is that the Supreme Court, when it unleashed the new money era of politics, was convinced that it would not corrupt our politicians as long as the voters knew who was donating. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion in Citizens United, observed that “sunlight” would allow voters to “(s)ee whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

That sunlight must also shine on nonprofit “social welfare” groups, or our political campaigns risk heading down a dark-money path.