Anonymous “Dark Money” Political Contributions are Backfiring

Here’s the dilemma.  Let’s say you’re a rightwing millionaire and you’re planning to purchase the next election right out from under the lowly public.  If you donate to a Political Action Committee (PAC), the PAC has to disclose the names of its donors.

When the public starts seeing the nasty attack ads you’ve paid for, they’re gonna say “who’s the cocksuckin’ douchebag that’s financing this shit?”  And then they’ll follow the money right back to YOU.

This is why so many large corporations and wealthy individuals are laundering their money through these phony “charity” organizations that are NOT required to disclose their donors.  You can purchase the election or candidate of your choice and still remain hidden under your rock.  Foolproof, right?

Wrong.  New research has discovered that while attack ads lose their effectiveness when their donors are revealed, the public backlash is even worse when the donors are kept secret.

This study was performed by Conor M. Dowling and Amber Wichowsky.  They used a group of 1,213 participants.  The participants watched a political attack ad from the 2010 election.  For some viewers, the ad showed a list of donors at the end of the ad.  For the other group, the donors weren’t listed in the ad, but later on the viewers read an article about Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, the group behind the ad.

The attack ad lost some of its effect among the viewers who saw the list of donors.  There was no change among the people who didn’t see the list of donors but only read the article about American Crossroads.

Dowling and Wichowsky said:

“Our study suggests that voters may be more likely to pay attention to campaign finance data if it is directly and objectively presented, much in the same way that nutritional information is displayed.”

However, the attack ad was the least effective among a group who saw the ad, weren’t shown a list of donors, and then later learned from an article that the ad’s donors were being kept secret.

Dowling and Wichowsky said:

“This result suggests that individuals and corporations could be viewed in a negative light if they do not disclose their donors, which is perhaps one reason why several corporations have decided either to not make political contributions or to adopt their own disclosure policies.”

Maybe this is why Far Right extremists spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2012 election — most of it from undisclosed donors — and they have practically nothing to show for it.