Friday, November 15, 2019
501C4s, Dark Money, and Socioeconomics in Politics
In class today, we discussed the idea of 501C4s – nonprofit organizations allowed to make independent expenditures – being able to donate money to super PACs in support of a particular candidate. Supporters donating through 501C4s can remain anonymous because the 501C4s don’t pass on donor information to the super PACs. In other words, 501C4 organizations have found an accountability loophole in campaign finance. While there is a technical standard held – that these C4s can’t make political donations their “primary activity” – this standard is so vague that maintaining it is difficult. The lack of accountability these 501C4s allow can give rise to countless avenues for political manipulation by the donors. The money donated to super PACs by 501C4s is a specific case of what is referred to as “dark money,” which is money spent to influence voter decisions in favor or against a particular candidate(usually money given anonymously and not directly tied to the candidate). This concept of “dark money” is greatly concerning when looking at the influence this funding can have on support for political candidates. If the candidates with the most dark money financing them are more likely to succeed in elections, that means wealthier voters(who can donate more) have a larger influence on how the general public views candidates. Those with the largest amount of wealthy supporters can get more funding for indirect support, and might therefore be more favored in an election than candidates with less wealthy supporters. Though the IRS has attempted to address more severe instances of C4s and dark money, they have made little progress overall and are struggling to clearly define and enforce the qualification of “primary activity”. As this struggle to regulate these organizations continues, the use of dark money is still largely present, leaving politics at the whims of America’s wealthiest voters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, the whole concept around 501C4s is strange and oddly vague. t seems to just have become a loophole that people use to donate money to political campaigns without having to sign their names to the money, as you mentioned. From what we've seen and talked about in class, these organizations can result in unfair advantages that candidates most likely shouldn't have, especially when it comes to the super PAC donations. However, using these 501C4s to people's advantage isn't technically illegal, which is why it's difficult to regulate or fix these types of issues, even when authorities know they're clearly present. I agree with your point that because of this problem, the political status of the country is greatly influenced by the wealthiest voters, which is a pretty worrisome thought.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post, as I was also fascinated by 501(c)(4) organizations. I agree that these loopholes could potentially allow money to control the outcome of elections. However, people have the right to choose what they do with their property in the United State’s relatively laissez-faire economy. Additionally, anonymity may not be as big of a factor as it seems to be. Furthermore, in today’s polarized political climate, a lot of people simply vote along party lines and are not swayed by advertising, especially for presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteI found your post really interesting, and I think it brought up a lot of good points. I can see both sides to the debate, but I agree with your stance in which the wealthiest citizens get to have the biggest impact on the election. I feel that this is definitely an issue, because it will make it so that those who have more money are always going to have an unfair advantage over those who may not be in the position to donate mass amounts of money to their candidates.
ReplyDelete