I recently began working for the Open and Honest Elections group here in Arizona as a signature circulator. My job is to collect the necessary number of signatures for two separate ballot initiatives before the next voting session. I work alongside dozens, if not hundreds, of circulators. One of the initiatives being pursued is an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would prohibit funding from “dark money” — that is, all campaign donations of $10,000 or more cannot be anonymous.
The first thing I noticed while collecting signatures was that most of the people I asked did not oppose this dark money initiative. Besides making my job easier, that fact has also made me interested in understanding those who do oppose forcing large donors to donate publicly.
In my conversations, I have heard a couple compelling reasons to oppose this amendment. The first is a reference to our right to free speech. Some people have referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case to allow campaign donations independent of the candidate as a form of free speech. They argue the court's rule extends to the right of anonymity in free speech, and this is a compelling argument.
Another concern I have heard stems from the IRS scandal involving Lois Lerner, in which various people and groups were unfairly targeted by the IRS based on their record of campaign donations. Many of those that oppose an initiative to prohibit dark money worry that this could happen to them. This is a horrifying notion, and I think it leads to a fair desire for anonymity in campaign donations.
However, those arguments seem to me to be slightly flawed, and the potential benefit from making large donations public outweighs them.
The first one does not seem to consider Justice Scalia’s own words (who voted in favor of Citizens United): Scalia himself felt that donations are protected under the first amendment, but that people have a right to know the source of donations. Anonymity in donations does not necessarily fall under the same right to give donations.
To those who bring up the second argument, I offer an alternative outlook. If the IRS being corrupt is your concern, then the goal should be to actively fix the IRS, not to sacrifice some of the dignity of a democratic process to protect donors. In my mind, continually defending ourselves is less effective than just fixing the problem that is threatening us.
One positive to a dark money amendment is that it would force large funders to be more honest. Under the current system, there are no repercussions to an anonymous group for funding an ad or campaign that spreads lies. If the source of the money was public, the donors would have to consider the truthfulness of their ads because the ads would be attached to their personal reputations.
Furthermore, when large donations are made publicly, donors have to think twice about bankrolling attack ads that only introduce vitriol into an election. Many ads just cause needless harm. For example, watch these attack ads from 2012, many of which were paid for by faceless organizations:
Some of those ads are ridiculous and mention nothing important about a candidate, and instead just spread animosity. The same types of ads appear in Arizona all the time, and if donors were held accountable, there would be fewer ads of this strain, and the ones that still exist would be far more relevant. Such an outcome helps our democracy.
Considering the two sides of the debate, it seems to me that an amendment to expose dark money would improve Arizona. It would lead to more honest election campaigns. The traditional quip encouraging honesty is “put your money where your mouth is,” but the more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps a phrase better suited for politics is “put your mouth where your money is.”
Related Links:
ASU Foundation denies contribution was used for campaigns
Campaign finance laws: Anti-corruption or anti-free speech?
Reach the columnist at gheiler@asu.edu or follow @heilergeorge on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
