Bringing 'Dark Money' hypocrisy into light of day

The rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C., would have you believe Republicans and right-wingers are pouring cash into a well-oiled political machine, while ragtag liberals and Democrats are stuck mumbling around in disorganized poverty. But the real numbers in Montana tell a different story.

Here at least, liberal causes dominate both the money and the machine that drive political outcomes. And frankly, even though I don’t share their goals, I have no problem with their funding sources or organizing methods. I just wish they’d be a little less hypocritical about them.

People should be able to spend their money on political causes. It’s the modern-day equivalent of the corner soapbox, as messages have to reach more people and compete with more voices. The answer to irresponsible speech is more speech, not less of it. Whether it’s billionaire Tom Steyer killing the Keystone pipeline or the billionaire Koch brothers funding libertarian causes, adding speech to political debates is preferable to taking it away.

Changes in campaign finance laws over the past decade or so have shifted most of this speech from parties and candidates to independent expenditures, or “dark money.” But that term “dark money” has become nothing more than a focus-group tested euphemism for money spent on conservative candidates and causes, and a shallow one at that.

The problem isn’t that there’s too much money in politics. It’s that there’s too much politics in money. As long as the government insists upon picking winners and losers, people will find a way to pay to be on the winners’ list. Eliminate government’s ability to make or break businesses, communities and convictions, and you will eliminate the money people spend protecting those things.

But that’s probably not in the cards, so let’s take a snapshot of who’s spending the “dark money” in Montana. During the 2012 election cycle, independent expenditures supporting liberal candidates and causes outpaced those of conservatives by an order of magnitude: $4.3 million to $336,000 (as reported by www.followthemoney.org). So much for the vast right-wing conspiracy. Sure, there are all kinds of other direct and indirect political expenditures, but if it’s “dark money” critics want to focus on, all they really have to do is look in the mirror.

In truth, national political agendas are increasingly driving political activism and spending in Montana — both on the right and left. With federal laws, regulations, and spending impacting more and more of our everyday lives, virtually every issue in the political world has become a national issue. Obamacare dictates the insurance you can buy. Dodd-Frank regulates your banking options. The Education Department decides what your kids need to know.

The list goes on. Every aspect of our lives is increasingly coming under D.C. control, which means national interests have a stake in every state election. And those interests on the left side of the spectrum are pouring resources into Montana affinity groups where they can get a big bang for their buck.

How do we know this? My group just put up a website that connects the dots between national, state and local organizations and individuals advocating so-called progressive agendas and issues in Montana. If you’re on the left, you can go to www.MTLegacyTakers.org to find out who’s on your team and support them. Good for you, and I mean that. But if you lean right on most issues, you can use the site to figure out if that local “sportsman” or other mild-monikered group associates itself with organizations and causes that share your values.

We’re defined in large part by the people with whom we choose to associate, and it’s fascinating how resources — not so much money but organization and people — are funneled into the state through just a few groups and then parceled out to make a progressive national agenda look local. That’s worth illuminating.

The site only looks at left-leaning networks because, well, that’s our job. But if someone wants to create one for right-leaning networks I’ll be happy to give them pointers. Again, the antidote to bad speech is more speech, not less of it. People have a right to speak and spend in ways that advance their values. But let’s be honest about who’s doing what instead of engaging in hypocritical rhetoric.

Graham is president of the Montana Policy Institute and director of Sutherland Institute’s Coalition for Self-Government in the West