“Dark Money” in Missouri U.S. Senate race

You may have noticed some political advertisements lately, but only if you are conscious and breathing.

Airtime and print is costly which raises the question of who’s paying for all these ads.

Out-of-state money is coming into Missouri politics, particularly the U.S.. Senate race, at such a rate that about $2 of $10 contributed actually comes from Missourians, according to the U.S.. Public Interest Research Group.

Ours is one of the “key” Senate races in the United States where Democratic donors are working to retake the Senate, and Republican contributors are trying to keep control of that chamber.

A study released Monday by U.S.. PIRG, shows of $376 million raised by candidates and political action committees in select races in states including ours, $318 million came from outside interests. The group says since nearly 85 percent of that money came from national donors, their outsized influence on elections is clear.

Consistent with the national rate, the group shows 85 percent of the money contributed in the Missouri’s race between incumbent Republican Sen. Roy Blunt and Democratic Secretary of State Jason Kander comes from out-of-state. As of the research date, the candidates had raised $12 million and $8 million of it came from sources outside Missouri, according to U.S.. PIRG.

Although it could change at any moment, the stations operated by the Networks of Mid-Missouri are running commercials for five different groups. The Senate Leadership Fund and U.S.. Chamber of Commerce are running ads against Jason Kander. The groups buying airtime against Roy Blunt are the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Majority Forward and AFSCME People.

Most voters have a negative view of so-called dark money. That is money from non-profit political social organization and trade groups. Such groups can receive unlimited donations from people, companies and unions without disclosing the names of those donors. That money is usually spent on campaign advertisements intended to influence voters.

When this part of the campaign financing issue is raised, it often ignites debate of the U.S.. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision regarding Citizens United. That 5-4 ruling said corporations are protected by the First Amendment and have the right to spend an unlimited amount to support political issues and causes.

In a 2015 Bloomberg survey, 78 percent of respondents said the Citizens United ruling should be overturned. Only 17 percent considered it a good decision.