CHARLESTON, W.Va. — In the last two months, two polls have found West Virginia voters have concerns about so-called “dark money” in politics.
They say the opaque political spending by nonprofits, shell companies and outside groups to state officials means voters don’t always get the information they need about candidates.
Quentin Berg, a Putnam County resident, said he believes dark money is an issue in both major political parties in the state, and thinks it’s become almost impossible for most West Virginia voters to accurately assess a candidate’s priorities.
“Without that accountability, it’s impossible to know what their real priorities are whenever they get into office,” Berg contended.
A pair of polls released in March and in May by the End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund found 79% of West Virginians support the “For the People Act” in Congress, which would require any group spending more than $10,000 on political ads to disclose all donors who gave that amount or more.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., has voiced opposition to the legislation.
In 2020, nationwide state and federal election spending was estimated at about $14 billion, almost double what was spent in 2016, and is based on official Federal Election Commission filings.
But experts at the Leir Institute at Tufts University say it does not fully account for dark money.
Berg believes instead of catering to the needs of corporate donors, West Virginia elected officials should be working to invest in communities and the state’s outdoor recreation economy.
“We don’t do a good job at putting money into our people and into our communities, to make it a place to live, a place that you want to raise a family,” Berg asserted.
According to opensecrets.org, in 2020, liberal groups used more than $514 million in dark money toward elections, compared with around $200 million used by Republican groups.
get more stories like this via email
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Consumers, employers, and small business owners in Wyoming and across the U.S. agree that it’s time to go big on health care reform, according to new polls.
Frederick Isasi, executive director of the nonprofit Families USA, said Americans are fed up with paying exorbitant prescription drug prices and a host of other abuses.
He argued the biggest barrier to reform is the consolidating power of the trillion-dollar health industry, with hundreds of lobbyists in Washington DC and state capitals.
“So this really is a David and Goliath moment,” Isasi asserted. “Where these very monied interests are working the system they have always worked to try to stop elected officials from doing what the American people want. And so this is a moment where the American people really have to raise their voices.”
The health sector spends more on lobbying than any other industry, but Isasi argued they represent a minority view. Among respondents, 75% of voters want President Joe Biden and Congress to rein in abuses this year, and 85% of the nation’s executives said the government should play a bigger role in providing health coverage and containing costs, a move they believe will be better for business.
One in three small businesses said getting all employees’ health coverage during COVID-19 was a priority, but costs were a prohibitive barrier.
Isasi noted the surveys showed minds are more open today about the need to secure the health of all members of the community, regardless of their backgrounds.
“And there has been, I think, an awakening to the role of immigrant communities, and vulnerable communities, as front-line workers keeping our economy going during the pandemic,” Isasi remarked.
In Wyoming, one in ten children do not have health insurance, and 15% of nonelderly adults lack coverage.
Isasi contended no one should have to forego health care due to costs, or choose between filling a prescription and paying their rent or mortgage. He added the ball is now in Congress’ court to ensure families never have to make those impossible decisions.
get more stories like this via email
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A new bill signed into law in Arkansas strengthens privacy rules for people who donate to charitable causes.
Critics of so-called “donor-disclosure” laws say they’re important for nonprofit groups, especially those taking political stands, to maintain a level of transparency about their donors.
Jerrick Adams, a staff writer who tracks this type of legislation for the website Ballotpedia, said those who advocate for expanded donor-disclosure rules say they minimize the potential for fraud and establish accountability.
“They would argue that if you donate to a nonprofit that is heavily involved in politics,” said Adams, “and your donations to that nonprofit are not disclosed, you have sort of disproportionate influence without any of the accompanying accountability that comes with making a donation to candidate, or speaking on behalf of a candidate in a public forum.”
The bill bars state agencies and officials in Arkansas from implementing disclosure requirements for nonprofits that are “more stringent, restrictive or expansive” than those already in force.
It also prohibits state and local public agencies from requesting or disclosing information about a nonprofit’s donors.
Opponents of the measure say it allows nonprofits involved in politics to funnel so-called “dark money” into campaigns, to support or oppose candidates through organizing and advertising, while remaining anonymous.
Adams said another point sometimes made is that revealing information about donors could violate privacy rights and can even decrease charitable activity.
“So, many nonprofits feel like this is an existential threat,” said Adams, “given what’s generally referred to as the chilling effect on donations.”
Adams added that the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a California case about its policy requiring nonprofit groups to submit their Internal Revenue Service tax forms, which include donor information, to state officials.
“The case before the Supreme Court is about whether that policy,” said Adams, “whether the policy of states collecting this information for their own purposes – is constitutionally sound.”
Under federal law, nonprofits are generally not required to disclose information about their donors to the public. But Adams said lawmakers in handful of states – including Iowa, Nebraska and North Carolina – have considered similar legislation this year.
get more stories like this via email
AUGUSTA, Maine — Good-government groups in Maine support a bill which would ban corporate contributions from going directly to state legislators or their campaign committees, a rule that’s already in place in 22 other states and at the federal level in elections for Congress and for president.
John Brautigam, legal counsel and senior policy advisor for the League of Women Voters of Maine and Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, pointed out corporations are profit-driven, and sometimes use campaign contributions to curry favor with legislators and influence the policy agenda.
“We believe that it’s important to ensure that the political process and our democracy are reserved to the voters, to the public, where they can have their say, not to be drowned out by money from corporate interests,” Brautigam contended.
Brautigam noted the corporate form allows a very small number of people to control the flow of a huge amount of money, and he argued this type of reform is long overdue.
Brautigam noted industries with the most interest in public policy vary from state to state, but some stand out in Maine.
“Insurance and health-insurance industries, we’ve seen chemical manufacturers, we’ve seen mining interests, we’ve seen gambling interests,” Brautigam outlined. “We’ve seen pharmaceutical, certainly all using campaign contributions to try to gain access to the policymaking process.”
Brautigam asserted corporate influence in elections won’t stop until lawmakers put a stop to it, although they only can go so far within the parameters of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.
It resulted in corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, as long as they’re not formally coordinating with a candidate.
get more stories like this via email
