PD Editorial: Campaigns charade of independence

In Washington, they’re known as super PACs. Here in California, they go by the more mundane independent expenditure committee.

Whatever you want to call them, these outfits are in the same business: influencing the outcome of elections. To that end, they raise and spend enormous amounts of money, sometimes more than the office-seekers themselves.

A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have freed these committees to accept donations of any amount, so long as they don’t coordinate efforts with the candidates they support.

They’re supposed to be independent in practice, not just in name. Why? For the same reason that candidates aren’t allowed to accept unlimited contributions: elected officials might be swayed by big donors.

All too often, candidates, super PACs and independent expenditure committees seem to treat those restrictions as mere suggestions rather than legal requirements.

On the presidential campaign trail, super PACs supporting Republican candidates have raised four times as much money as the candidates this year. Many of the nominally independent committees are staffed by longtime friends and associates of the candidates, and it’s increasingly difficult to distinguish between campaign operations and super PAC operations.

“The whole conceit of a super PAC is that it is supposed to be independent of a candidate and does not present the potential for corruption,” Richard L. Hansen, an expert on campaign finance at UC Irvine, told the Los Angeles Times. “The close relationship between super PACs and candidates this time really puts that to the test.”

With a partisan deadlock on the Federal Election Commission, candidates and committees know that there aren’t likely to be any consequences for flouting the law.

California, however, is poised to crackdown on abuses by independent expenditure committees.

On Monday, the state Fair Political Practices Commission proposed stricter rules to prevent coordination between candidates and independent expenditure committees.

The rules would prohibit an independent committee from using the same political consultant as a candidate’s campaign. Former staffers for a candidate wouldn’t be allowed to run an independent expenditure committee, and a candidate’s relatives couldn’t bankroll an outside group. Finally, candidates wouldn’t be allowed to attend fundraisers sponsored by an independent expenditure committee.

These proposals are on the agenda for the FPPC’s meeting on Oct. 15.

The rules would neatly complement regulations adopted last month to address another serious flaw in the campaign finance system: the rise of dark money.

Dark money refers to campaign spending by nonprofit groups that exploit a loophole in federal tax law to hide the names of their financial benefactors. These groups claim to be in the business of social welfare when their true purpose is to influence elections.

California’s new rules are straightforward: Nonprofits that contribute money through federal political action committees to influence state elections must identify their donors.

Campaigns are expensive, so money is going to be part of the process. The sources of that money shouldn’t be hidden, and candidates shouldn’t be allowed to play fast and free with anti-corruption laws.

California’s political watchdog agency appears to understand. The FEC, unfortunately, is yet again proving itself to be a toothless tiger.