We need more transparency so voters can know who’s spending big money to influence our politics.

View this email in your browser ([link removed]) | Forward to a friend ([link removed]) | DONATE ([link removed])
[link removed]

From the Desk of Trevor Potter
Dear John,

Two important things are happening in the American political world right now — the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the upcoming 2022 midterm elections — and they have at least one connection in common. That is, secret spending by special interests to influence public opinion — money where the true source is unknown.

Some background: secret spending, or dark money, is a huge problem in our political system, and fighting for transparency is a top priority at CLC.

Special interests can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections or political outcomes. In part because of gaps in our laws and in part because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn’t enforce the laws we already have, secret spending has increasingly saturated our politics and is enabling special interests who want to rig the system in their favor.

[link removed]

Voters have a right to know who is speaking and who is trying to influence our votes and our government. Transparency is a crucial component to effective public discourse and self-government.
Back to the two things I mentioned:

First, the U.S. Senate is considering the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As we know, the Supreme Court is an immensely consequential body, and who sits on the court can have profound implications for American democracy. Some of the worst decisions by that court in the last decade adversely affecting the health of our democracy — Citizens United v. FEC, the diminishment of the power of the Voting Rights Act, the refusal of the court to stop partisan gerrymandering — have been decided by one vote.

While senators review Judge Jackson’s record, special interest groups are spending millions on advertisements both in support of and in opposition to her nomination, without disclosing who is funding them.

For example, Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group, launched a $2.5 million campaign ([link removed]) last month. Similarly, the liberal group Demand Justice — which also does not disclose its donors — already announced last month that it would roll out a $1 million ad campaign ([link removed]) in support of Judge Jackson. Given that the amount spent on Supreme Court nominations during the Trump years totaled in the tens of millions of dollars, ([link removed]) I would not be surprised if the total continues to grow in the coming weeks.

Given the stakes of a Supreme Court nomination, we should ensure that voters’ right to know who is spending big money to influence the process is honored. CLC supports solutions like the Judicial Ads Act to ensure transparency. The Judicial Ads Act, introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-C.A.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), for example, would ban foreign nationals from funding ads pertaining to Supreme Court or other judicial nominations and requires groups that spend over $50,000 on judicial nomination ads to include disclaimers and be transparent about their donors. CLC worked closely with Sen. Feinstein's Judiciary Committee staff as the bill was drafted.

Second, Congress itself is likely to be influenced by secret spending this year in the lead up to the consequential 2022 midterm elections, when the control of both the House and Senate will be decided.

If the last midterm cycle — 2018 — was any indication, we can expect a lot of undisclosed spending this cycle. During the 2018 cycle, ([link removed]) more than $150 million was spent by dark money groups, and liberal dark money groups outspent conservative dark money groups for the first time since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose party could very well benefit from secret spending in its efforts to recapture Congress, used to be in support of disclosure, as my colleague Fred Wertheimer helpfully tracked on this webpage. ([link removed]) Though he no longer supports Congress doing anything about it, that does not stop him from attacking “secret spending” by groups supporting Judge Jackson’s nomination, demonstrating that he knows such spending is unpopular with the public at large, which recognizes it as a threat to democracy. My hope is that members of Congress of both parties will soon come around to the overwhelming view of the public (83% in polling), which is that political contributions to organizations like dark money groups should be disclosed.

CLC and our affiliate CLC Action will continue to pursue lawsuits challenging issues like super PAC coordination ([link removed]) (an avenue for secret spending to corrupt candidates) and advocate for solutions to boost transparency and accountability. In tandem, we should all continue to press our leaders in government to pass solutions and enforce our laws so we can reduce corruption in our political system and protect voters’ right to know. In this important moment, let’s make our voices known in support of transparency.
Sincerely,

Trevor Potter
President, Campaign Legal Center
Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Instagram ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center is dedicated to advancing democracy through law at the federal, state and local levels, fighting for every American’s rights to responsive government and a fair opportunity to participate in and affect the democratic process.

Copyright © 2022 Campaign Legal Center, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Campaign Legal Center
1101 14th St NW, Ste 400
Washington, DC xxxxxx
USA
** Unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])