With the November 8 general election right around the corner, we should take a look at an issue that plays a large role for several of the state questions and several state level races which will be on the ballot. The issue I'm referring to is the role that "Dark Money" plays in the success or failure of a state question or a House/Senate race. I think we should understand the definition of only two political philosophies before we analyze "Dark Money", because the difference between the two is very subtle, yet very distinct. According to Wikipedia, "Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centered on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes, and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism". It sounds like what many of us claim to be. Fascism U.S.A. - A Review of the Growing Loss of Democracy defines Fascism as "where big corporations have become our government". Since no one in America thinks of himself/herself as a fascist, we'll use Benito Mussolini's (Fascist dictator of Italy) definition of Corporatism, which is "the merger of State and corporate power". I think it's important we quote Vladimir llyich Lenin's criticism of fascism in that "Fascism is capitalism in decay" as it is related to Dark Money. Oklahoma Watch defines dark money groups as "Independent groups that seek to influence elections". These groups make a concerted effort to keep their donors anonymous, for fear that if names are exposed, obviously the donating entities will stop donating. Also, the recipients (state question or candidate) of dark money support often claim they have no knowledge of the dark money support - whether true or not. On June 24, 2016 (just prior to the June 28 primary election), Oklahoma Watch reported that dark money groups "that seek to influence elections had spent more than $300,000" in the five weeks prior, "on Oklahoma's legislative and congressional primary contests". Now that we understand a couple of the political philosophies and related issues as applied to the upcoming election, I'll apply them to specific competing entities in a past election (primary election on June 28, 2016) and then link the issues to the upcoming November 8 general election.
As many friends know (and also people that are not familiar with me) I'm a public school official in Blanchard, but I also ran for the District 42 House of Representatives seat in the primary election on June 28, 2016. Many citizens who run for public office do so for various reasons, and my reason was that since the present legislature has been unable to balance the state budget for about the last 2 or 3 years (I think everyone can agree), I would lend my experience - since I have balanced multi-million dollar school budgets for the past 12 years. Since I had never run for public office, I encountered many issues with which I had no experience or knowledge. One such major issue is the role that "Dark Money" plays in many elections, whether it's about candidate or state questions. As I stated from news reports, dark money did play a role during the previous primary election, both state-wide and personally. From Oklahoma Watch, June 24, 2016, 'Dark Money' Groups Accelerate Spending in Oklahoma Races - "The Oklahoma Federation for Children Action Fund (OFC), a school-choice PAC that supports offering vouchers to attend private schools, was the only group to spend money in opposition to candidates. In two races, the group targeted current or former educators who are running on a platform to increase funding for public schools. The federation spent about $3,600 in direct mail criticizing Blanchard Public Schools Superintendent Jim Beckham, who is running in the House District 42 Republican primary. It also spent $1,114 in support of his opponent (Tim) Downing." ... "Of the four groups that have made independent expenditures on legislative primary races, an obscure non-profit called Catalyst Oklahoma spent the most. ... $29,120 in support of Tim Downing in House District 42." In my opinion, these two Dark Money groups targeted me and supported Mr. Downing for obvious reasons. Also from Oklahoma Watch - 'Some candidates garnering support from the independent expenditures (dark money) have moved to distance themselves from the efforts.' " Unless it says 'authorized and paid for by friends of Tim Downing,' it is not from me," Downing wrote on his campaign's Facebook page earlier this month. "I have zero control over people or groups who exercise their freedom of speech to communicate with voters." I also received a questionnaire from the OFC which asked questions related to 'my support for school vouchers'. One must bear in mind that I've been highly critical of the American Federation for Children (AFC), the federal affiliate for the OFC, based in Washington D.C., for their state legislator lobbying efforts in Oklahoma. I did not complete and return the questionnaire, simply because I recognized the group for what it was (Dark Money). The document I received from the OFC indicated that if I supported their position for school vouchers by returning the questionnaire indicating so, I would receive financial support for my campaign. Little did I know that by ignoring their offer of support, they would mail out cards to republican voters which was very negative toward me.
I also accepted an invitation from a group to interview for potential financial support for my campaign. The group was unidentified by name, but I assume it was the Catalyst Oklahoma group. It was made up about 10 members, all corporate entities, which asked a series of questions. One question in particular raised a red flag for me - "Are you for or against the one-cent sales tax for education?" I answered "This sales tax would never have been proposed, had the current legislature been able to balance the state budget without raising taxes". They took this answer to mean that I support the sales tax increase. I knew going in that I would not receive support from this group, but I did not know they would make thousands of phone calls to voters, criticizing me and building up my opponent.
I know that "ethics" is a personal choice - in that everyone's definition of which actions are ethical or unethical is up to each. In other words, just because I believe particular actions are unethical for me doesn't make it so for another. For me, receiving solicited support for one's campaign from a dark money group, and then denying knowledge, is unethical.
Many, if not all dark money groups belong to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is an organization made up of giant for-profit corporations which pay $millions in membership fees - in order to receive access to state legislators. At annual conferences, state lawmakers are invited, where they are wined and dined, in order to advance "for profit" corporate legislation. This is the place where State Question 777 - The Right to Farm, was born 20 years ago. It's finally made to Oklahoma, along with $$$ to a lawmaker's campaign fund.
I always vote for the candidate in any race who has not received Dark Money, and I vote for the state question side which does not receive dark money. I will vote for Liz George in the District 42 House race, and I will vote NO on SQ 777 - The Right to Harm, because organizations which support the opposite - belong to ALEC.
No comments:
Post a Comment