A Counterweight to Outside Spending in Elections
On July 22, the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) is co-hosting a conference with NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice to explore solutions to two disturbing trends in recent elections: the flood of outside spending and declining voter participation.
In New York City, public financing of campaigns and robust disclosure laws reduce the impact of independent expenditures.
But in the federal system and other jurisdictions where disclosure requirements are weak and there is no public financing, concerned citizens are exploring other ways to counter the increase in outside spending. One such group is CounterPAC, a super-PAC that advocates for candidates to forgo the support of outside and “dark money” groups. We review the group’s creative approach briefly below, but you should also attend our conference on Wednesday to hear Jay Costa, CounterPAC’s executive director, detail his plans for the 2016 elections and beyond.
CounterPAC was established in 2014 with the aim of getting candidates to agree to a pledge to reject “dark money” in their races. The pledge is modeled on the successful “People’s Pledge” in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown. As in that race, CounterPAC’s pledge would require candidates to “reject” any such expenditures made on their behalf by donating 50 percent of the cost of the expenditure to a public charity of the opposing candidate’s choice. CounterPAC would act as the enforcer of the agreement, conducting a negative media blitz against any candidate who violates the pledge.
If candidates stick to the pledge, it has the potential to limit independent and dark money spending. In the 2012 Massachusetts race, independent and dark money spending accounted for less than 10 percent of total spending, far less than the “upwards of 60 percent in other states” attributed to independent spenders, according to CounterPAC. In 2014, CounterPAC helped make dark money one of the key issues addressed by candidates in three federal races. CounterPAC plans to expand the scope of its efforts in 2016, with the aim of significantly reducing the role of outside and dark money in some of the most competitive federal elections.
In New York City, matching funds allow candidates to run a robust campaign without relying on the support of big-money contributors or special interests. The CFB’s report on the 2013 elections noted that public funding has proven to be a successful counterweight to independent spending. A number of publicly-funded candidates won their elections despite being massively outspent by independent groups.
Moreover, the city has taken great strides to establish safeguards against the influence of outside spending in its local elections. Currently, independent spenders that spend above a certain threshold are required to file with the CFB via the Independent Expenditures Disclosure System (IEDS) and disclose detailed information about their leadership, funding sources, and the expenditures themselves. This information is made publicly available on the CFB’s Searchable Database. In addition, a new law will take effect in August that aims to prevent “dark money” spending in City elections by requiring independent spenders to disclose more information about the sources of their funds. As New York City’s 2013 elections showed, the combination of public campaign financing and comprehensive disclosure rules remains the best long-term way to empower voters and reduce the influence of big money in our elections.