To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
"Based on this ruling," said CREW's Noah Bookbinder, "the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections." (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)
An ethics watchdog has claimed a "major court victory" after a federal judge issued a ruling invalidating a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation that allowed contributors to so-called dark money organizations avoid disclosure.
"This ruling looks like a major game changer," said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Based on this ruling, the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections."
\u201cBREAKING: We just won a major victory against dark money that could change the political landscape and bring much more transparency to our elections https://t.co/wWwar2zRZb\u201d— Citizens for Ethics (@Citizens for Ethics) 1533399508
CREW was a plaintiff in the case, and had challenged in 2012 Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS--a "not-political committee"--over its failure to disclose who donated $6 million in the Ohio Senate race, a sum CREW argued was subject to federal reporting requirements.
U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that Crossroads GPS's defense didn't hold water, writing Friday that the three-decade old FEC regulation at question fell short "of the broad disclosure that Congress intended."
The challenged regulation, she concluded, can facilitate groups' "routing" of contributions to candidates or the groups' affiliated super PACS, and
blatantly undercuts the congressional goal of fully disclosing the sources of money flowing into federal political campaigns, and thereby suppresses the benefits intended to accrue from disclosure, including informing the electorate, deterring corruption, and enforcing bans on foreign contributions being used to buy access and influence to American political officials.
Her decision, CREW explains, means that "dark money groups that spend at least $250 in independent expenditures--a key type of political ad--must report every contributor who gave at least $200 in the past year as well as those who give to finance independent expenditures generally."
In a Twitter thread outlining the importance of ruling, Center for Responsive Politics' Robert Maguire says it "could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all)."
\u201cThis. Is. Huge. \n\nIt's hard to exaggerate how big of a deal this @CREWcrew victory is. If it stands, it could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all).\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cDark money groups will still benefit from certain loopholes that, honestly, might never be closed, like the "issue ad" one we mentioned yesterday https://t.co/X6m6ogyDGg\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cBUT, that is not at all to downplay the importance of the decision. \n\nConsider that dark money groups have spent more than $733 MILLION (!) on independent expenditures -- the type of spending the case was concerned with -- since Citizens United.\n\nA huge portion of their activity.\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
Bookbinder agreed, saying it "could dramatically change the American political landscape and result in significantly more transparency."
"Major donors are now on notice that if they contribute to politically active 501(c)(4) organizations, their contributions will have to be disclosed," he said, "and if they are not, CREW will pursue enforcement cases with the FEC and, if necessary, in court."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
An ethics watchdog has claimed a "major court victory" after a federal judge issued a ruling invalidating a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation that allowed contributors to so-called dark money organizations avoid disclosure.
"This ruling looks like a major game changer," said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Based on this ruling, the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections."
\u201cBREAKING: We just won a major victory against dark money that could change the political landscape and bring much more transparency to our elections https://t.co/wWwar2zRZb\u201d— Citizens for Ethics (@Citizens for Ethics) 1533399508
CREW was a plaintiff in the case, and had challenged in 2012 Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS--a "not-political committee"--over its failure to disclose who donated $6 million in the Ohio Senate race, a sum CREW argued was subject to federal reporting requirements.
U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that Crossroads GPS's defense didn't hold water, writing Friday that the three-decade old FEC regulation at question fell short "of the broad disclosure that Congress intended."
The challenged regulation, she concluded, can facilitate groups' "routing" of contributions to candidates or the groups' affiliated super PACS, and
blatantly undercuts the congressional goal of fully disclosing the sources of money flowing into federal political campaigns, and thereby suppresses the benefits intended to accrue from disclosure, including informing the electorate, deterring corruption, and enforcing bans on foreign contributions being used to buy access and influence to American political officials.
Her decision, CREW explains, means that "dark money groups that spend at least $250 in independent expenditures--a key type of political ad--must report every contributor who gave at least $200 in the past year as well as those who give to finance independent expenditures generally."
In a Twitter thread outlining the importance of ruling, Center for Responsive Politics' Robert Maguire says it "could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all)."
\u201cThis. Is. Huge. \n\nIt's hard to exaggerate how big of a deal this @CREWcrew victory is. If it stands, it could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all).\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cDark money groups will still benefit from certain loopholes that, honestly, might never be closed, like the "issue ad" one we mentioned yesterday https://t.co/X6m6ogyDGg\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cBUT, that is not at all to downplay the importance of the decision. \n\nConsider that dark money groups have spent more than $733 MILLION (!) on independent expenditures -- the type of spending the case was concerned with -- since Citizens United.\n\nA huge portion of their activity.\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
Bookbinder agreed, saying it "could dramatically change the American political landscape and result in significantly more transparency."
"Major donors are now on notice that if they contribute to politically active 501(c)(4) organizations, their contributions will have to be disclosed," he said, "and if they are not, CREW will pursue enforcement cases with the FEC and, if necessary, in court."
An ethics watchdog has claimed a "major court victory" after a federal judge issued a ruling invalidating a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation that allowed contributors to so-called dark money organizations avoid disclosure.
"This ruling looks like a major game changer," said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Based on this ruling, the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections."
\u201cBREAKING: We just won a major victory against dark money that could change the political landscape and bring much more transparency to our elections https://t.co/wWwar2zRZb\u201d— Citizens for Ethics (@Citizens for Ethics) 1533399508
CREW was a plaintiff in the case, and had challenged in 2012 Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS--a "not-political committee"--over its failure to disclose who donated $6 million in the Ohio Senate race, a sum CREW argued was subject to federal reporting requirements.
U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell found that Crossroads GPS's defense didn't hold water, writing Friday that the three-decade old FEC regulation at question fell short "of the broad disclosure that Congress intended."
The challenged regulation, she concluded, can facilitate groups' "routing" of contributions to candidates or the groups' affiliated super PACS, and
blatantly undercuts the congressional goal of fully disclosing the sources of money flowing into federal political campaigns, and thereby suppresses the benefits intended to accrue from disclosure, including informing the electorate, deterring corruption, and enforcing bans on foreign contributions being used to buy access and influence to American political officials.
Her decision, CREW explains, means that "dark money groups that spend at least $250 in independent expenditures--a key type of political ad--must report every contributor who gave at least $200 in the past year as well as those who give to finance independent expenditures generally."
In a Twitter thread outlining the importance of ruling, Center for Responsive Politics' Robert Maguire says it "could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all)."
\u201cThis. Is. Huge. \n\nIt's hard to exaggerate how big of a deal this @CREWcrew victory is. If it stands, it could fundamentally change the role dark money plays in elections (if it has a role at all).\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cDark money groups will still benefit from certain loopholes that, honestly, might never be closed, like the "issue ad" one we mentioned yesterday https://t.co/X6m6ogyDGg\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
\u201cBUT, that is not at all to downplay the importance of the decision. \n\nConsider that dark money groups have spent more than $733 MILLION (!) on independent expenditures -- the type of spending the case was concerned with -- since Citizens United.\n\nA huge portion of their activity.\u201d— Robert Maguire (@Robert Maguire) 1533402136
Bookbinder agreed, saying it "could dramatically change the American political landscape and result in significantly more transparency."
"Major donors are now on notice that if they contribute to politically active 501(c)(4) organizations, their contributions will have to be disclosed," he said, "and if they are not, CREW will pursue enforcement cases with the FEC and, if necessary, in court."