The New York Times looked at this week’s Super PAC filings with the FEC and demonstrated—again—what we knew would be the result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision: The specter of hundreds of thousands of dollars of hidden money influencing our elections and those who will be elected.

The times notes that, “some checks came from sources obscured from public view, like a $250,000 contribution to a super PAC backing Mr. Romney from a company with a post office box for a headquarters and no known employees.” But, while the public remains in the dark, it would be naïve to think that the identity of the donor (or donors) of that generous contribution is unknown to Mr. Romney. So, what does he or she want? Favorable tax treatment? Fewer regulations for a pet industry? A bailout? An ambassadorship? It is possible that the money came from a generous citizen who simply believes Romney would be the best man for the job. But the system of secret dark money now in place means the voters will never know.

The Supreme court relied heavily on the theory that transparency would cleanse the unlimited money that would shape our elections as a result of their decision in the Citizens United case, noting, “A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today.” Unfortunately, the Court failed to realize that such a system of disclosure does not yet exist.

There is a solution. Sunlight proposed the SUPERPAC Act as one way to shine more light on the dark money infecting our elections. It would impose a regime of disclosure and disclaimers that would lift the veil of secrecy under which large donors may hide. But Congress needs to act. So far, we’ve heard talk. House Democrats say they will re-introduce a slightly paired down version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that failed to be enacted last year. And on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Schumer has promised hearings on disclosure by Super PACs.

These are important steps. (Although, arguably they should have happened well before the election season got under way.) Disclosure legislation is a critical tool in the fight against the undue influence secret money has on our campaigns and our elected officials. Unless Congress acts, we can be sure that we have only seen the tip of the dark money iceberg that is undermining the fundamentals of our democracy.

Tonight's State of the Union Address raised even less transparency issues than we expected. (See the text at the end of this post.)

President Obama called for a ban on insider trading in Congress, and proposes to ban lobbyists from bundling contributions, and to ban bundlers from lobbying.

The insider trading ban is a proposal Sunlight has supported, in the form of the STOCK Act, despite some initial misgivings. Congress should create clarity about self-dealing and insider trading, and the President is right to call on Congress to address this issue.

When Obama raised the issue of money in politics in his speech, though, he raises the "corrosive influence of money in politics." As wrong as insider trading may be, money in politics isn't about self-dealing. Obama is closer to hitting the mark in raising the issue of bundlers, but unfortunately raises a proposal that's unlikely to get discussed beyond tomorrow. A ban on lobbying or contributing to campaigns is unlikely to pass Congress, and unlikely to pass muster with the courts.  Even if it did, it would do little to mitigate the "corrosive influence of money in politics", since bundlers are often just the bag men operating at others' behest. If you're not getting the Chris Dodds of the world, your lobbying reform plan is probably aiming a little too low.

It's not clear why Obama is suddenly more interested in bundlers than say, lobbying disclosure (last year's lobbying SOTU provision), although it's possible that Obama is raising it because it will become a campaign issue, as Republican candidates have yet to release information about bundlers supporting them, as Obama has.

But this is still disappointing, since it again shows Obama relying on a flawed statutory definition of lobbyist in order to appear opposed to special interests, without actually having to do much.

Worse, though, than the lackluster vision for lobbying reform, is what's entirely missing from the State of the Union: any mention of the flood of dark money flowing into our elections. As I noted earlier today, Obama spent most of 2010 railing against the Citizens United decision -- warning us of the dangers of unlimited and secret contributions, and pushing for a legislative fix.

Since Republicans have blocked that effort, and former White House staffers started a super PAC to help Obama's re-election bid, Obama has almost completely ignored the issue. It's apparently too politically awkward to address when he's the beneficiary of all that dark money he spent 2010 warning us about.

It's good to have a President willing to raise transparency and money in politics in the State of the Union. But when insider trading and an ill-fated lunge at bundlers are all the vision he has to offer, we have to wonder whether Obama sees his old transparency platform as a political liability, rather than a vision to be perfected and implemented.

Speech Excerpt:

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics.  So together, let’s take some steps to fix that.  Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.  Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.  Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days.  A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate.  Neither party has been blameless in these tactics.  Now both parties should put an end to it.  For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

In our continued effort to highlight the anniversary of January 2010's Citizens United decision, this month's weekly roundups will take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. First, we took a look at bloggers from the primary states. Last week, we looked at bloggers from the East coast states. We'll be ending our coverage by rounding up local blogs from the West coast states, where many campaign donations derive.

• San Francisco's Political Blotter covered Common Causes’ Amend 2012 campaign to reverse the Citizens United ruling. According to  Josh Richman of Political Blotter, “A constitutional amendment will take years to pass, coming far too late to stem the tide of money that’s already flooding this year’s election, but organizers say this effort at least will give outraged voters a voice and inject the issue into November’s vote, forcing candidates to take a position on it.” The campaign's initial drive for petition signatures will focus on Colorado, Montana and Massachusetts; that might expand to Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio and Washington. Common Cause President Bob Edgar said Americans “have lost faith in Washington, they don’t think the government works for them anymore.”
• Despite 2010’s Citizens United ruling, Montana state courts upheld the state's law banning corporate spending. According to the court, laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Opponents of Citizens United in Montana worry that a large influx of corporate money has the potential to alter the course of elections and politics in the state. A former house representative maintained that, “Montana, with its small population, enjoys political campaigns marked by person-to-person contact and a low cost of advertising as compared to other states.” For the whole story, check out Patrick Genova’s post on State of Elections.

It has already begun. And it's getting worse.

Two years ago, on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed it, in a series of court cases including the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. We felt it in the 2010 midterm elections, but we didn't know how bad it would get. And now, as we approach the presidential election, it's more powerful than ever. If we don't work to stop it, it will contaminate everything in sight. On Election Day -- 1021 days later -- our democracy will be a wasteland.

That's why we made this video and hope you'll watch it (and share!). In the shadows of our democratic system, powerful, special interests and super PACs are already infecting early primary states with unlimited and all-too-often secretive campaign cash. This dark money is reaching epidemic proportions; it feeds on itself and the advertising and mud it slings. It spreads from state to state and coast to coast, voting booth to voting booth.

The best way to fight a virus that thrives in the shadows is to expose it to Sunlight. That's where you come in. Last week, we asked you to help us write the SUPERPAC Act, legislation that would bring transparency to the unlimited money being spent to influence our elections and fight the "zombie-fication of politics." This week, we want to share with you fun and informative resources that you can use and share to keep yourself and your friends virus-free.

The video's just the start. You can also test your knowledge of super PACs with our matching game to see if you can connect the candidates to the super PACs supporting them. And if you want to see what a super PAC looks like behind the ads, you can even check out the super PAC sleuth project. Who knows? There might be one hiding near you.

And just in case you just can't get enough super PAC info, we got you covered. We're building a resource page with a super PAC cheat sheet, original reporting, policy background and more. It's a work in progress, and we'll continue to add information throughout the campaign season, so keep checking back and let us know what you think: http://sunlightfoundation.com/superpacs.

Joining us from Montana as our special guest blogger is Montana Cowgirl. You can read more of her blog on Montana Cowgirl . This post puts in perspective, the state's decision to fight the U.S. Supreme court's ruling on Citizens United.

All eyes are on the Big Sky state after Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock’s huge win against shadow political groups. These groups tried to overturn Montana’s centuries-old ban on corporate spending in elections.  Bullock beat them down.

A few years ago the U.S. Supreme Court gave it’s full seal of approval to corporate influence in elections, in the infamous Citizens United Case. Since then, Montana has been the only state in America with the backbone to wage a war to defend it’s own state laws prohibiting such corporate spending.   Our laws date back to 1912, and were passed in response to Copper Kings who tried to buy the entire state government with bribes.

The ruling by the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. State of Montana is a ray of hope for American election law.  During the 2010 elections, giant industries descended on Montana and spent huge sums of unregulated, undisclosed money, as much as $6 million, to elect Republican legislative candidates. The result was the most lopsided election in Montana history.

A big shout-out to Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who found an artful way to weave an opinion out of delicate cloth, upholding Montana’s ban on corporate money passed by voters in 1912, by finding meaningful distinctions between Montana’s law and the federal law that was held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Citizens.

Montana's Supreme Court ruled that Citizens United does not apply to state elections.   The Citizens United court went on and on about how difficult it is for corporations to use political action committees (PACs) to participate in the political system. Here in Montana, that's just not the case.  Anyone can form a state PAC by filling out a simple form that only takes a minute or two to fill out.

As Montana Supreme Court Judge Jim Nelson wrote in dissent, “the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping.”

Citizens United will still apply to federal elections in Montana.  So, candidates for the U.S. House and Senate in Montana will still face millions of dollars in corporate-funded special interest attack ads.

Bullock should be proud of having argued a landmark decision that will be remembered in Montana for many decades. He is running for Governor in Montana on the Democratic ticket.

Montana Commissioner of Political Practices

In our continued effort to highlight the anniversary of January 2010's Citizens United decision, all of this month's weekly roundups will  take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. Last week, we took a look at bloggers from the primary states. This week, we'll be rounding up blogs from the East coast states, where many campaign donations derive.

• Vermont State Senator Bernie Sanders has just proposed the "Saving American Democracy Amendment" aimed at overturning the Citizens United decision. In a statement, Sanders maintained, “There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment.” He called the court's ruling "a complete undermining of democracy.” Sanders launched an online petition to garner support for the Amendment. Sanders is bringing the proposal before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by  Senator Patrick Leahy. A Leahy spokesman said that while Leahy supports attempts to undo the damage of the Citizens United, he remains skeptical that the Senate will be able to gather the two-thirds super majority necessary to pass Sanders' proposal. The issue appears to have gained local traction in Vermont; Ben & Jerry’s ice cream moguls Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield sponsored a well attended public forum to lend to gather public support for Sanders’ amendment. For more on this story, check out  Shay Totten's post on Seven Days. 

As the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United decision approaches, the Sunlight Foundation has drafted the Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability in Campaigns Act (the SUPERPAC Act). This bill, if enacted, would be one step towards addressing the corrupting influence unlimited, secret SUPERPAC money has on our elections and our elected officials.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to have given up on efforts to shine a light on campaign activities that are financed by secret money flowing from corporations and unions. First, the DISCLOSE Act was largely derailed by congressional Republicans. Now, by failing to offer new legislation, both parties appear to have abdicated their responsibility to ensure our elections are transparent

We hope the SUPERPAC Act reignites the effort and that members of Congress will decide to stop serving their self-interest and start acting in the public interest by taking a step in favor of transparency. The SUPERPAC Act is designed to be a disclosure only bill, largely including the transparency provisions of the DISCLOSE Act while leaving out some of the bans, carve-outs and other provisions that made DISCLOSE controversial.

We encourage the public to comment on our effort so we have posted The SUPERPAC Act on PublicMarkup.org, Sunlight’s web site that allows anyone to help improve legislation we propose. Highlights of the bill include the following:

• Ensure disclosure of donors who fund independent expenditures and electioneering communications made by Super PACs or other 501(c) organizations. Donors giving to an organization for other purposes may remain anonymous if the organization establishes separate accounts for non-election related spending.

• Require real-time, online disclosure of all reports. Data must be in searchable, sortable, machine-readable formats and reports must include unique IDs for all filers.

• Require disclaimers (stand-by-your-ad statements) and identification of top funders in the ad.

• Require registered lobbyists to report their spending on independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

• Require all candidates and committees to file electronically with the Federal Election Commission.

The SUPERPAC Act is not a panacea for all that ails our elections today. It is a critical first step—one that will arm voters with important knowledge about who is paying for our elections. Other proposals to address the problem of unlimited secret money infecting our democracy include a constitutional amendment, legislation to give shareholders a voice in how their money is spent on elections, and public financing of elections. But, as the Supreme Court and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have endorsed disclosure, the Super PAC disclosure-only bill should be the least controversial and most easily enacted of the many proposals.

In politics, the messenger is as important as the message. Voters have a right to information that will tell them whether the Super PAC that paid for an ad they just watched is tied to one of the candidates or was paid for by a corporation or union to whom the candidate will be beholden if he or she is elected. We hope with the new year Congress will return with a new resolve to take up the issue of transparent elections and enact the SUPERPAC Act.

SUPERPAC Act

To highlight the anniversary of January 2010's Citizens United decision, all of this month's weekly roundups will  take a look at what local bloggers across the country are saying about the ruling. First up, bloggers who represent the primary states:

• Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is pushing for a bill that would limit the amount of money corporations can contribute to a political campaign. He maintains that “This bill that we are pushing would amend the Constitution to basically say that money is not speech.” While she sees the proposed bill  as a step in the right direction, Lydia Waddington of the Iowa Independent has her doubts,pointing out that “in a Congress that has been loathe to pass meaningful legislation, the idea that any joint resolution to amend the Constitution could gain enough bipartisan traction to reach the two-thirds majority it needs in both chambers is, to be blunt, laughable — something Harkin and the bill’s other 14 supporters openly recognize.” Harkin agrees that the bill’s passing is unlikely, but maintains, “I think as we go into the campaign next year, and as people see more and more of these distorted ads, which the candidates have no control over — you are going to see all of these devastating ads on candidates and where they stand and all of that, paid for by some bogus group. And the Supreme Court has given them a shield so that they don’t even have to say where [the money] comes from.” Marybeth Gardam, Iowa organizer for a grassroots organization Move to Amend feels that the bill falls short, saying, “This [proposal] addresses the ‘money is not speech’ piece of it, but it does not address the ‘corporation is not a person’ piece of it. And as long as they have that right — which they got very illegitimately in the 1880s — they will be able to use that power against ‘we the people.”

• David Shlutz post on MinnPost.com emphasizes the changes Citizens United ruling brings to state and local political campaigns in Minnesota. He maintains that, “Besides making it possible for corporations to make unlimited express advocacy expenditures in races for governor, the other constitutional offices, and the state Legislature, they will be free to do the same for local races such as city council and mayoral races. Citizens United also enable corporate express advocacy in judicial elections. He suggests a number of policy decisions to ensure that laws are being properly followed, for instance, Minnesota could mandate that any corporate expenditure must be disclosed at the time it is made.
• In their continued protests against Citizens United, Occupy Orlando took their message to Florida senator Gary Siplin’s office “to present a formal letter asking for his support to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.” The Occupy Orlando action is being launched in conjunction with the national Move to Amend campaign, that seeks to “end the illegitimate legal doctrines that prevent the American people from governing ourselves.” Move to Amend maintains that the Citizens United ruling granted corporations the same rights as natural persons, “entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.” For the whole story, read Virginia Chamlee’s post on The American Independent.

• In Iowa, a forthcoming Surpreme Court decision will soon clarify the Citizens United ruling and how it might be interpreted. In September of 2010, Iowa Right to Life filed a complaint in the Southern District of Iowa challenging the constitutionality of Iowa campaign-finance laws maintaining  that Iowa’s new laws–which were enacted in the wake of Citizens United–are still too burdensome for organizations making independent expenditures who are not registered as political action committees. Iowa Right to Life argued that Iowa’s new rules impose PAC-like obligations on all organizations making independent expenditures of more than $750, and that these rules violate the First Amendment.  The State argued that the rules do no such thing, and thus there is no constitutional problem.  Chief Judge Pratt agreed with the State, but concluded that he is “generally without authority to construe or narrow state statutes.” For more information and an update on the forthcoming ruling, see Ryan Koopmans’ post on On Brief.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open a rulemaking calling for online disclosure of information that broadcasters collect about the political ads they air. If robust disclosure rules are put in place before the 2012 elections get into full swing, it will be a huge victory for the public, who has a right to know who is paying for the avalanche of political ads that will blast from their televisions in the months ahead.

Political advertising has an overwhelming impact on the election process. Making public information about who is paying for political ads, which candidates the ads support or oppose, where they are being run, and how much is being spent on them has always been in the public’s interest. In the post Citizens United era, where it is not only easy but commonplace to mislead the public about the source of dark money behind a political ad, such disclosure is even more important, and fully in-line with the Supreme Court’s embrace of transparency in that decision. If the FCC adopts a meaningful online disclosure system without delay, it will secure its leadership in using technology for information gathering and disclosure, setting an example for other agencies to follow.

A searchable FCC database of ad buys would not only enable the public to go directly to the FCC’s website to ascertain who is behind the nasty, misleading political ad that just interrupted their enjoyment of Dancing with the Stars, but would allow for re-use of the data and in-depth analysis by local journalists, scholars and others who could analyze whether the ad money being spent on races in Kansas is coming from New York, whether more money is being spent by outside groups than the candidates themselves, and where races are heating up as determined by spending.

Efforts to make information about political advertising more publicly accessible have been thwarted before, and certainly the National Association of Broadcasters is likely to object to rules that they will claim are burdensome. But that powerful special interest should not be given a free ride this time around. The public has a right to know the true source of the funding behind the political ads they see, and broadcasters across the country have an obligation not to be complicit in the conspiracy that keeps the public in the dark.

Like many organizers, I’ve been following the #occupywallstreet movement for a while. Last weekend, I was planning to head up to New York to see what it was all about when I learned that it was spreading and had already arrived in Washington. #OccupyDC started sometime Friday night with around six people. When I showed up on Saturday morning to check it out, there were over a hundred people there, and I’ve been back every day since to watch it grow.

As an organizer, this has been an incredibly cool movement to watch. As a transparency advocate, it’s been even better: Occupy DC, also known as @occupykst, is a grassroots movement that is seriously talking about the overwhelming power of powerful special interests, lobbyists, and money in our political system. In fact, they’re occupying McPherson square -- on K Street and only steps from some of the most powerful lobbying firms in the country.

So this weekend, Sunlight’s going to be heading over to the Occupation to do a teach-in on following the money in politics. We’ll be talking about lobbying firms, banks and investment banks data, Super PACs and how money works in the post-Citizens United world, and the nonstop party of political fundraising.

Want to join us? We’ll be there at 3pm on Sunday, October 9th.

What: Teach in at #occupydc on following the money in politics Where: McPherson Square When: Sunday, 3pm

Part of #OccupyDC and want us to cover anything in particular at the teach-in? Leave it in the comments.

Just a quick note for those who might be confused: While they have, for the last few days, shared a hashtag on twitter, the #Occupy group I'm referring to is not the same as the group currently occupying Freedom Plaza. That was a separately organized event that's been in the planning for months, and while there's many activists that have been trying to show support for both, the Freedom Plaza "Stop the Machine" rally appears to be focused on issues a bit different from the K Street group or Sunlight.