Social Welfare Dark Money and Unconstitutional Conditions

Don't even get it twisted.  I'm voting for Harris.  Not just because I, along with her opponent, have recently discovered that she is half Black. Race is part of it, I'll admit.  But at this  point, I would vote for anybody, almost, except Trump. Harris could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I would still vote against Trump.  So I can honestly say I'm not being entirely racial voting for Harris.  I have been racial in the past, though.  I always admired McCain and I have come to seriously admire Romney' principled integrity.  But I would have still voted for Obama both times, for no other reason than his half blackness.  That doesn't mean I don't like a good story, even one critical of my racial candidate.  So here is a report about Kamala Harris' use of dark money.  That fact is not so remarkable but Helen Santoro, the reporter, makes an assertion that caught my attention. First, the back story: 

As a junior Democratic senator in 2019, Vice President Kamala Harris took direct aim at dark money, co-sponsoring election reforms that would have revealed the identities of the megadonors behind these secretive efforts to sway elections. “It does not represent justice in America when dark money is fueling elections and when the few who have the greatest amount of wealth behind a veil without even presenting themselves or their names, manipulate and fuel the election process,” she said in a speech at the time. “We’ve got to take that money out of politics.”  But now, as her presidential campaign benefits from millions in contributions from secret donors — including a whopping $20 million donation from Democrat’s main dark-money group a week after she became the party’s presumed nominee — what is Harris saying about untraceable political spending? So far this election cycle, not much.

Behind the scenes, political committees supporting Democratic candidates have reported more than $100 million in dark-money contributions this election season, while committees supporting Republicans have reported similar amounts. According to OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign finance and lobbying data, dark-money groups are on track to contribute more money to this election than ever before.  At the same time, the Harris campaign is further obscuring the origins of its donations. Harris has yet to release the names of her “bundlers” — fundraisers who compile massive “bundles” of campaign checks from numerous donors. 

. . . 

Both parties have come to rely on dark money, but critics say such behavior from Democrats is especially hypocritical. The party has repeatedly introduced legislation to stop anonymous political donations, including a 2019 bill co-sponsored by Harris, and its 2024 platform pledged to “end ‘dark money’ by requiring full disclosure of contributors and ban 501(c)(4) organizations from spending on elections.” But at the same time, Democratic lawmakers have been unwilling to take the necessary steps to pass such reforms — all while continuing to welcome massive checks from 501(c)(4)s.

It doesn't bother me at all that Harris is accepting dark money.  If you can't beat 'em, you damn sure better join 'em and nobody is going to get dark money out of politics anymore anyway.  It's too late for wishful thinking.  Here is the part that really stopped me, though:

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision — a development decades in the making — triggered the flood of dark money by ruling that politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Such nonprofits are considered “dark” because they don’t have to disclose their donors, allowing them to bombard Americans with political ads and messages without revealing the identities or motives of the people funding them.

Harris' dark money gives me hope.  But did the Supreme Court really say "politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections."  Because right now, social welfare organizations cannot spend an unlimited amount on politics, though nobody knows how much is too much.  If "insubstantial" means "unlimited" that would solve everything.  I told the reporter I didn't think that was quite right.

But on second thought, maybe the Court has already said exactly that.  Just not all at once. In Citizens United the Court said the government cannot prohibit a (c)(4) from talking all it wants about politics and who to vote for.  And then separately in a whole bunch of other cases, that the government may not condition a discretionary benefit on the recipient's forfeiture of the right to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment.  The government cannot condition tax exemption or research grants or unemployment benefits on our agreeing to refrain from public debates about politics. If those two things are separately true, then combined they mean that a (c)(4) can say however much it wants about politics and political candidates, and its tax exemption cannot be revoked for doing just that. Unlimited amounts.

Santoro might be right after all. 

darryll k. jones