Between The Lines: 'Dark Money' Lurks Loudly

A gathering on the steps of the state Capitol last week, though noteworthy, probably came too late to have much impact on Tuesday's elections.

It was a protest of the role "dark money" is allowed to have in the electoral process in Arkansas.

What makes the money "dark" is it comes from unidentified sources and is used to influence the outcome of public elections to advance hidden agendas of individuals or groups or corporations.

A sizable contingent of lawyers, former judges and others staged the event, speaking out against the influx of this dark money into Arkansas' judicial elections.

The money has been spent, or will be, mostly on what might otherwise have been a little noticed race for the Arkansas Supreme Court. The race will be decided this week.

Any real impact on policy may have to wait for another election cycle. But at least there are people pointing out how much more money seems to matter in our elections and how little we really know as to how that influence is being peddled or by whom.

The speakers at the Thursday rally/news conference in Little Rock really didn't talk about the candidates or their relative fitness for the state's highest court. They honed in instead on an estimated $400,000 being spent against one of two men seeking election for the only contested seat on the Arkansas Supreme Court this year.

For the record, the candidates are Tim Cullen and Robin Wynne. They seek a position being vacated by a retiring associate justice on the seven-member court.

Cullen, a Little Rock lawyer, is the obvious target of the controversial ad buy while Wynne, a Court of Appeals judge from Fordyce, is the indirect beneficiary of this out-of-state spending.

A Virginia-based outfit, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, is behind an ad designed to wound Cullen's chance of election. The group is being accused of misleading the public regarding Cullen's court-appointed representation of a criminal defendant.

Who are these people? Why are they so interested in this Arkansas election? Where did the money for this ad buy really come from?

Apparently, about all any of us may know about the organization or its donors is what they're willing to tell us. That boils down to their claim to be "the largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens."

Wander the organization's Web site and you'll get a good idea of the its mission and see news of this effort in Arkansas.

You still won't know who is footing the bill or see any way to find out. The money they're spending is dark and is going to stay that way. It is also unlimited, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to allow Super PACs to have unfettered influence on elections.

Arguably, if the group's backers get the results they want in the Arkansas election, there will be more money, probably lots more money, to come to influence other races down the road. Maybe this is about the Arkansas judiciary. Maybe it is just about what money can buy in a test election.

Here's the odd part of this story. Candidate Wynne, who gets to call himself "judge" on the ballot, had the upper hand anyway. State law allows judges and other titled candidates to use their titles on the ballot. It shouldn't be allowed but is an undeniable advantage.

Wynne also has more electoral experience, having served as a state representative as well as a district and appellate judge. By contrast, Cullen has spent his career in private law practice.

The backlash to the group's big spending push against Cullen has given his candidacy far more attention than it would likely have gotten otherwise. And Cullen should pick up votes from people who are concerned about this dark money issue, assuming the message sent from the Capitol steps reached people who haven't yet voted in the Supreme Court race.

Wynne might lose some votes because he did not denounce the alliance's ads against Cullen. But Wynne will also get votes from people negatively influenced against Cullen.

Because elections for the judiciary are nonpartisan, the voters will come from Democratic, Republican and independent ranks. Some may have been influenced more than others by the dark money or by the rally against it.

Remember, too, the big spending and the resulting controversy may influence whether a voter sits out an election altogether, not just how he or she may vote.

No matter what influences them to vote, whoever shows up will still decide who wins or loses.

BRENDA BLAGG IS A FREELANCE COLUMNIST AND LONGTIME JOURNALIST IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS.

Commentary on 05/18/2014

Upcoming Events