When Democrats Lose, 'The Market for Political Information Is Broken'
Over at the Media Matters blog Political Correction, Alan Pyke bemoans "the frighteningly vast influence of anonymous dollars" in "the first national election of the post-Citizens United era," as reflected in political ads sponsored by independent groups that are not required to disclose their donors:
According to ad data reviewed by Political Correction, there were twenty separate right-wing groups outside the official party structure that managed to air over 1,000 ads each. These twenty groups together accounted for 144,182 TV ads, over 92 percent of the total pro-Republican TV ads aired by outside groups from August 1 to Election Day.
Who were these "outside groups"? No. 1, as measured by pro-Republican ads aired between August 1 and Election Day, was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It was followed by Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads, two groups associated with former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove. Here are the rest of the top 20, in descending order: the American Action Network, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, Americans Against Food Taxes, the 60 Plus Association, Club for Growth, Americans for Job Security, the National Rifle Association, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Center for Individual Freedom, the Commission on Hope, Growth & Opportunity, the National Taxpayers Union, the Committee for Truth in Politics, Tea Party Express, Super PAC for America, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
A couple of these groups (American Crossroads and the Club for Growth) are organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, meaning 1) they have to disclose their donors and 2) they were permitted to run campaign ads even before Citizens United. But the rest are mostly trade groups or 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations, meaning 1) they do not have to disclose their donors and 2) they had new freedom this year to engage in "express advocacy" or its "functional equivalent" (although the extent to which any "issue ads" they ran qualified as such is not clear). But are these ad sponsors "shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names," President Obama's description of the evil forces unleashed by Citizen United? The president seems to think the Chamber of Commerce qualifies. But by my count, about half of these entities are familiar, well-established interest groups, as opposed to organizations newly created to take advantage of the freedom allowed by the Supreme Court's decision. Even with groups of the latter sort (such as Crossroads GPS), it is not hard to find out who is behind them (follow the links above, for starters) and why, even without a comprehensive list of donors. So what exactly is the problem (aside from the fact that the groups Pyke complains about all supported Republicans)?
Pyke concedes the importance of the First Amendment issues at stake in Citizens United, and he even admits that mandatory disclosure could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech (nodding toward Reason's coverage on both counts). But he worries that "the market for political information is broken" because most voters do not have the time (or inclination?) to look for independent verification of claims made in a Chamber of Commerce or Crossroads GPS ad. "By flooding the zone, outside anonymous-money groups make it much, much harder (if not impossible) for average folks to know the score when they head to the voting booth," he writes. "Denying voters a chance to evaluate the interests behind a given piece of information or negativity is a terrible idea in a democracy."
In the alternative system Pyke seems to have in mind, "average folks" could 1) go look up the complete list of donors to the Chamber of Commerce or Crossroads GPS (which most of them presumably would not do, since Pyke says they do not have the time for such research) or 2) make a snap judgment about an ad's veracity based on the major donors mentioned at the end, relying on ad hominem logic. ("If David Koch supported this ad, it can't be true.") I'm not sure how that's an improvement, in terms of making thoughtful, well-informed electoral choices. Furthermore, Pyke's concern that well-funded independent groups are "flooding the zone" closely resembles the anti-distortion rationale for campaign finance regulation that the Supreme Court rejected in Citizens United: the idea that the government should prevent wealthy speakers from using their superior resources to "drown out" other messages. As I note in Reason's current cover story, that mission requires the government to squelch some voices so others may be heard—precisely the sort of power that the First Amendment prohibits.
Look for my column tomorrow about spending patterns in last week's elections.
