Great piece from the AP’s @BrianSlodysko on Sen. Ernst’s apparent ties to a so-called dark $$ group. Very timely as well, given that we are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. apnews.com/eeb44fc06b0cb2…
CU’s core holding was that so-called “independent” spending does not pose a sufficient risk of corruption to justify any sort of limit. To the extent there are any legitimate concerns for our political system, they could be solved through transparency.
The Court seems to have assumed that groups like Iowa Values would be truly independent from candidates, and that they would be required to disclose their sources of funding — but they were wrong on both counts, as my colleagues have previously explained. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…
Iowa Values is hardly atypical— many outside groups have close ties to candidates and officeholders, who are even permitted to fundraise for them. Giuiliani sidekicks Parnas and Fruman used one such fundraiser to lobby a sitting U.S. Rep to help them get Amb. Yovanovitch fired.
And like Iowa Values, lax rules permit many of these groups to avoid meaningful disclosure. It’s very difficult to tell where their funding comes from, or even if it originates in the United States (at least some probably doesn’t).
This isn’t just the Court’s fault. Either Congress or the Federal Election Commission could require outside groups to be truly independent and transparent. #HR1, which passed the House in March, would require both, but it was DOA in Mitch McConnell’s Senate.
All of which makes any debate over whether the particular situation documented in this article crossed a legal line feel a bit...quaint. But here we are.
