Today's theme: what makes it into the news and what doesn't. Is it dark money? Sometimes. The final product you, the media consumer, get is the result of multiple human choices.
What are the boundaries on what you’d call dark money? If you’re the Colorado Sun, the line is apparently kind of blurry. Sometimes.
As a frequent reader of the Sun, I can tell you that they are quite thorough when it comes to dark money. Thorough, in fact, almost to the point of being tedious. It is nearly a certainty that the first time you see the phrase mentioned in one of their articles, they will define it.
The thing is, I often wonder where they draw the line and how thorough they are in their research or who is or who isn’t a dark money group.
Let’s take the recent article linked below as an example. The article might look familiar: I used it in an earlier post about just how recent** political polarization is in school boards.
If you look down near the bottom of the article you’ll see the bit I popped out as screenshot 1. I did actually follow the link to see who was funding Stand for the Children (a liberal/Democrat group funding liberal/Democrat candidates for school board).
In all of about 5 minutes I was able to find one group that fits the Sun’s definition of dark money (a political group that doesn’t disclose their donors) by simply reading who it is that gives to Stand For Children and googling. Doing so led me to the second link below and the excerpt I labeled as screenshot 2.
Impact Fellows is a group that funds Stand for Children and .... doesn't disclose its donors.
I was curious why a news outlet like the Sun (normally so scrupulous about such things) wouldn't have noted it, so I sent the email you see attached as screenshot 3.
Thus far I've not gotten any response from the Sun (editor Ryckman or reporters). Given that it's been days I don't think I will but I will update if and when I do hear back.
I should note that not all the funders of Stand For Children are dark money, and that dark money is something both political parties have indulged in (that is, a quick look through any of the groups funding conservative candidates would likely pick up more than one group that doesn't disclose its donors). Nor was finding out this one group a huge burden: it was quite literally 5 minutes' work.
My point here is that if you call out dark money in one area, you should call it out everywhere. And that policies only have meaning if they're followed all the time and not just when you have extra energy or time or space (I'm not even alleging here that the reporters hid this out of an ideological bias).
News outlets (like the Sun) make a big to-do about their ethics policies and the value of journalism in a vibrant democracy. Those words ring hollow when you can't be bothered to do a quick google search or respond if someone points out an oversight.
If credibility is the goal, either the rhetoric or the journalism should be brought in line with actual practice. This kind of credibility doesn't necessitate perfection either. It requires an honest appraisal of what you produce and a willingness to admit your limitations (and/or fix your mistakes when you inevitably make them).
**The recent, in my mind, being a misnomer because the politics entering into school boards and schools is not new. It’s just novel to the left-leaning press.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/10/23/colorado-school-board-elections-political-divides/
https://www.ifaction.org/resources/legal-faq/
Is it still dark money if you disclose who gave you dark money?
One question I've often had is whether or not a political group should be considered a dark money group if they are funded by dark money themselves, but still disclose who gave them said dark money.
For example, let's say the Gaines Super PAC receives money from Advance Colorado (I don't get nor would I take money from anyone, this is just an example). Advance Colorado, as a group that doesn't disclose its donors and is thus considered (rightly) dark money.
If I disclosed the fact that Advance Colorado funded my Super PAC, should I be considered dark money?
My contention is yes. The dark money that funds anyone (even if as a pass-through) makes those that receive it dark money too. It doesn't become clean because I say who gave me the money.
What do you think? I'd be interested to hear other thoughts on the matter.
Whatever your thoughts on the matter, the fact that dark money trading hands is a common theme in Colorado political money.
I can't tell you the number of times I've been looking at campaign finance stuff and have seen one dark money group give money to another group which then gives money to candidates here.
I wish there was some law against this (or at least some law that would classify the receiver of dark money as dark money too), but so far I've not seen one and don't see a huge amount of political will to do so.
What makes it in an article and what doesn't.
The first post today was about how sometimes details can be left out of an article (with the second being a quick grace note).
I want to touch on that subject one more time, but this time with a CPR article.
The CPR article linked first below is an interesting look at the practical effects and wisdom of relying (as Democrats in this state have done lately) on sin taxes to finance things, in particular on relying on nicotine sin taxes to fund Polis' universal pre-K.
Left out of this exploration is what you see in the second article, that Polis made a backroom deal with tobacco giant Altria to buy off their opposition by throwing smaller cigarette companies under the bus.
I don't know about you, but that detail struck me as relevant and was noticeably missing from the CPR article.
Without informing the reporter ahead of time that he was answering questions on the record, I will not go into detail on what he and I discussed in our email exchange on the subject, but I can say this.
There are reasonable arguments to be made for including more detail (or not), articles pass through more than one hand before making it to the public, and you must remember that news organizations put space limitations on articles.
In short, what you read when you read something produced by another human is a product of multiple factors and multiple choices made.
Understand that this also applies to my sites as well. I make choices and highlight the things that stick out to me. I've made no bones about the fact that what I produce is commentary and thus biased, but a reminder doesn't hurt. Do not consider what I produce to be a complete source of information.
A strong argument to be reading news across multiple platforms and from multiple people if ever there was one.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/24/colorado-universal-pre-k-tobacco-vaping-taxes/
https://coloradosun.com/2021/01/05/proposition-ee-jared-polis-colorado-negotiations/