{"id":397,"date":"2018-03-13T21:08:20","date_gmt":"2018-03-13T21:08:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/massachusetts\/resources\/shining-a-light-success-of-the-massachusetts-disclosure-law\/"},"modified":"2018-03-13T21:08:20","modified_gmt":"2018-03-13T21:08:20","slug":"shining-a-light-success-of-the-massachusetts-disclosure-law","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/massachusetts\/resources\/shining-a-light-success-of-the-massachusetts-disclosure-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Shining a Light: Success of the Massachusetts Disclosure Law"},"template":"","class_list":["post-397","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource_type-report"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"A report details the impact of the 2014 Massachusetts Disclosure Act.","featured_image":"","resource_type":211,"authors":null,"related_issues":[84,464],"related_work":false,"location":24},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"

Executive Summary:<\/h3>\r\nSince the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), \u201coutside\u201d spending in elections\u2014political spending not coordinated with parties or candidates\u2014has skyrocketed. In the 2012 federal election cycle, outside groups spent a staggering $1.1 billion, an over 200% increase from 2008. At the state level in Massachusetts, outside spending has soared too, in both statewide and legislative races. Total independent expenditures have jumped from $4 million in 2006, to $11.5 million in 2010, to an unprecedented $20.4 million in 2014!\r\n\r\nOutside spending in Massachusetts, if it continues to grow by approximately 76% between statewide cycles, as it did from 2010 to 2014, will exceed official candidate spending, which decreased approximately 4% in the same time period, within six years.\r\n\r\nThe jump in outside campaign spending is being fueled largely by a dramatic increase in contributions from hidden donors, or \u201csecret money.\u201d Across the country, independent expenditure groups often face few requirements for disclosing where they get their money. This secrecy means the public is unable to find out who, or what, is funding a given campaign and thus to whom or what the candidate may be beholden. This infringes on a voter\u2019s ability to make informed choices at the ballot box, and to hold officials accountable for actions that could be taken on behalf of campaign funders.\r\n\r\nFortunately, Massachusetts is ahead of the curve, due in large part to Common Cause\u2019s efforts to secure transparency laws that protect the public\u2019s right to know. For example, Common Cause successfully championed legislation in the 1980s that requires reporting of independent expenditures. In 2009, the organization won reforms requiring disclosure of the funds behind electioneering communications, also called \u201csham issue\u201d ads (ads that are clearly intended to influence the election even if they do not explicitly say \u201cvote for\u201d or \u201cvote against\u201d a particular candidate). Most recently, in 2014, Common Cause led a victorious lobbying campaign for the Massachusetts Disclosure Law, one of the toughest in the country, which took effect in August of that year. Key provisions of the act include:\r\n