opinion

Column: Outsiders spend millions against Iowa interests

Iowa industries and interests are under attack from outside groups that are using lax campaign finance laws to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their own agendas, a new analysis of political spending asserts.

Opponents of the renewable fuel standard, for example, spent $1.3 billion in efforts to influence the federal government since 2007, according to the report. Iowa’s ethanol industry, which relies on the RFS for market access, is responsible for 47,000 jobs and $5 billion in economic activity.

MapLight, a non-partisan organization that researches the effect of money in politics, compiled the report for Iowa Pays the Price, a new group working to raise awareness and find solutions to campaign finance issues. The report looks at political spending on issues such as renewable energy, for-profit colleges, pharmaceutical costs, rail safety and competition by credit unions.

Campaign spending in Iowa increased from $14.5 million in the 2008 presidential election to $112 million in the 2014 midterm. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which granted corporations free-speech rights, was a direct cause. Campaign spending grew more than 130 percent between the 2010 midterm election and 2014.

Former congressman Jim Leach, a Republican from Iowa City, an co-chairman of Iowa Pays the Price, said the Supreme Court in that ruling took "the singularly most activist approach to an issue in the modern-day history of the country." By equating money with speech and corporations with persons, Leach said, the court performed a "linguistic gyration" that has created new law.

Brad Anderson, co-chairman for Iowa Pays the Price, said two-thirds of the money spent in Iowa during the 2014 campaign came from outside groups. Anderson was the 2012 Iowa campaign manager for the Obama campaign and he ran for secretary of state in 2014.

“They are generic-sounding groups without any foothold in Iowa so they can be as negative as they want without any backlash,” Anderson said. “And so you see just a slew of negative ads.”

He said 55,000 Iowans who requested absentee ballots for the 2014 election did not use them, and he believes negative advertising was one of the main reasons people chose not to vote.

Not all leaders of Iowa Pays the Price agree on the solutions, however. Anderson wants to see Citizens United reversed, as does Leach. Leach would install a system that matches small donations with public funds and setting minimum standards for receiving the public money. "That strikes me as a methodology that keeps citizens involved," he said.

Co-chair David Niffenegger, a Republican who worked on the 2014 state treasurer campaign of Sam Clovis, wants to require more disclosure for third-party groups and to remove contribution limits to official campaigns. That way, there would be less incentive to donate to secretive groups, he said.

Leach says more transparency is a must, but it won't solve the problem of undue influence. "There’s some transparency that exists but that doesn’t stop people from giving money and that doesn’t stop people from being indebted to people who give money," he said.

Pamela Behrsin, vice president of communications for MapLight, noted that money in politics was a problem before Citizens United. “Since Citizens United … it’s just blown up to a point where it’s a real issue and it’s threatening our democracy,” she said. She joined Iowa Pays the Price in roundtable discussions in Des Moines and around the state Monday to highlight the effect of outside spending on issues Iowans care about.

For example, the MapLight report shows most of the opposition to the renewable fuel standard has come from petroleum interests. The groups have spent most of their money — $1.1 billion — on lobbying. Direct contributions to candidates totaled $174 million and an additional $40 million came from outside spending.

During the 2014 election cycle, the oil and gas industry spent $350 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. The renewable energy industry, including wind and ethanol, spent $45 million during the same period.

The analysis can help Iowans understand the magnitude of the problem, but it doesn’t show the whole picture. It’s fair to argue, for example, that some of the money spent by organizations opposing the renewable fuel standard might be directed at other interests that have a higher priority in Iowa. At the same time, hundreds of millions are spent by groups that do not have to disclose their donors, so their motives may not be entirely apparent.

Iowa Pays the Price is trying to put together a coalition of concerned Iowans and organizations that can advocate for campaign finance reform in the caucus campaign. It's also compiling candidate responses to questions on money in politics.

Full disclosure of secret money in campaigns tends to have the most bipartisan support. There seems to be less consensus on whether and how to limit contributions and on who should be allowed to donate. We have to solve both problems. The cost of doing nothing is to have billionaires determine who will represent us in Washington.

To read the MapLight report and to learn more about Iowa Pays the Price, see IowaPaysthePrice.org.