First Anniversary of Citizens United Decision

A new report released by Public Citizen this week http://www.citizen.org/12-months-after surveys the results:

* Spending by outside groups jumped to $294.2 million in the 2010 election cycle, a nearly four-fold increase from the $68.9 million spent in 2006, the last mid-terms. Nearly half of that ($138.5 million) came from just 10 groups, with the biggest share by far benefiting Republicans.

* In 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefiting most from outside spending won the race -- a remarkable 80 percent win rate.

* The source of the money flooding into elections after Citizens United largely hidden: Because many of the independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors, barely a third -- 34 percent -- of the groups reported which people and groups gave them money.

As Public Citizen notes, the cloak of secrecy surrounding corporate campaign spending goes against the Supreme Court thinking behind Citizens United, which was that massive corporate spending was acceptable as long as the public knew about it. The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would have required non-profit groups to reveal the donors behind their election war chests, failed by one vote last spring in the face of a Senate Republican filibuster.

"Justice Brandeis got it right," [Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)] noted last February. "'We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.'" The message may already resonate with voters: A Survey USA poll last August found that, when asked whether corporate campaign contributions represent "free speech" or "bribes," 77 percent said "bribes." http://www.voterrollcall.com/client/Pol ... 93151c0906