So-called dark-money groups spent 27 percent more on this year’s elections than they did in 2010, thanks to reckless Supreme Court decisions and regulatory failures allowing unlimited, undisclosed political contributions. The groups hide donors behind the tax code, disguising themselves
So-called dark-money groups spent 27 percent more on this year’s elections than they did in 2010, thanks to reckless Supreme Court decisions and regulatory failures allowing unlimited, undisclosed political contributions. The groups hide donors behind the tax code, disguising themselves as “social welfare” organizations. In fact, they are an increasingly powerful and poisonous political force.
Analysts say they are just beginning to flex their muscles in preparation for the main event: the 2016 presidential election.
The Internal Revenue Service, which is supposed to ensure that social-welfare organizations are not political in nature, has failed miserably. The agency’s initial stab at researching the groups was a national embarrassment, though reports it targeted conservative groups were exaggerated. A Senate investigation concluded the agency subjected liberal groups to the same inappropriate treatment.
The scandal showed the IRS was ill-equipped to police political spending, struggling to distinguish between genuine social-welfare groups and political groups gussied up to look like them. So imagine how tough it is for voters to tell the difference.
Neither Congress nor the president has shown much interest in reining in these groups, though, partly because they benefit from the avalanches of ads they finance.
According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Wesleyan Media Project, most of this year’s ads favored Republicans. Typically, dark-money groups run the most negative and misleading ads, aimed at confusing voters and often keeping them home on Election Day. And because they don’t have to disclose the sources of their money, contributors don’t have to answer to customers, shareholders, or anyone else who may disagree with their politics. But they can make sure the candidates know who’s helping them out.
The Center for Responsive Politics study also showed the increase in outside political spending — including dark-money groups and those that disclose their donors infrequently, like super-PACs — coincided with a decrease in candidate and party spending. That’s too bad, because candidate and party ads tend to be less vitriolic and more transparent. If the trend continues, expect elections to grow even uglier.
It is encouraging that the IRS is writing guidelines for the groups involved. The existing rules say social-welfare groups’ main purpose should not be political, which has to be taken to mean most of their money should not be spent on politics. But it’s doubtful anyone is checking. The IRS needs better rules and the capacity to enforce them by 2016.
