Reveals U.S. Money/politics Nexus

By O'Leary, Mick | Information Today, October 2012 | Go to article overview Reveals U.S. Money/politics Nexus

O'Leary, Mick, Information Today

The Citizens United election campaign is in full swing. Spending patterns for the congressional and presidential campaigns are far different from those of 2010 and 2008. This time, old-style spending from direct candidate contributions is flat or down, while newfangled "independent expenditures"--that are not given to candidates or spent by their campaign organizations--are soaring. So far in the 2012 election cycle, more than $250 million in independent expenditures have been made, which is almost three times as much as at the same point in 2008--and this is written before the post-convention spending spree.


Why is there this big shift? Blame (or credit) Citizens United (CU), the Supreme Court decision formally titled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Issued on Jan. 21, 2010, the decision allowed independent organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising, as long as their efforts are neither part of nor coordinated with a candidate's formal campaign organization.

The CU decision was enormously controversial from the start. At his State of the Union address a week after the decision was announced, President Barack Obama famously rebuked Supreme Court justices for the decision. It's been acclaimed as a major victory for the First Amendment and condemned as a powerful corrosion of democracy by wealthy special interests. However, everyone has agreed that it's time to spend--big time.

What Is CU?

I was curious about the group that launched this landmark case. From the CU website, I learned that it describes itself as supporting "traditional American values." It contributes to Republican presidential and congressional candidates, leaning toward those who are strongly conservative (so far, no money to Mitt Romney). It is also very small, with slightly more than $500,000 donated to 75 presidential and congressional candidates in 2012 (through July 9). Its site lists the individual contributions, which range from $1,000 to $15,000.

But it turns out that there's more to CU than a handful of chump-change contributions. What about nearly $200,000 spent on behalf of three extremely conservative congressional candidates? What about nearly $50,000 spent against the candidacy of moderate Republican Sen. Richard Lugar? There's nothing on the CU site about these two cases. This is probably because these are independent expenditures from CU's super PAC (political action committee).

Secrets in the Open

How do I know about CU's independent expenditures? It's easy with, the leading source for tracking money in politics. OpenSecrets has other things about CU that are not on its own website, including a list of individual donors to CU and contributions from CU to other PACs.

OpenSecrets is the go-to place for information on the intersection of money and politics in U.S. national government. Whatever the manifestation--PACs, super PACs, lobbying, earmarks--OpenSecrets tracks it with minute detail (all data in this review are from the OpenSecrets site).

OpenSecrets is the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, a respected nonpartisan group that identifies itself as "the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy." It was founded in 1983 and launched the OpenSecrets website in 1996. The center is supported mainly by donations from foundations and individuals, but it doesn't get support from companies, trade associations, or labor unions. It derives additional revenue from custom research, and the website has moderate-sized ads on most pages.

The Complete Money/Politics Scene

OpenSecrets covers all the points in national politics where money influences actions, including the following:

* Presidential (from 2004) and congressional campaigns (from 1997): Contributions and donors, searchable and sortable by individuals, industry sector, groups, and geography; the candidates' personal finances included

* Congressional committees (from 1999): Provides industry sector donations to committee members

* Earmarks (from 2008): Lists Congress members' individual earmarks by amount and recipient with tie-ins to recipients' campaign contributions

* Lobbying and influence: A roundup of lobbyists, PACs, super PACs, and donors

* Revolving door: Names and profiles of congresspeople and staffers from Congress, congressional committees, and federal agencies who have moved to jobs with special interest groups and vice versa

Good Organization, Context, and Commentary

OpenSecrets obtains its raw data from several sources. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Cited article Reveals U.S. Money/politics Nexus


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.


    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.