Corporatocracy

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy describes how corporate greed led to scandal, corruption, and the January 6th insurrection―and how we can stop it from happening again

View the page of: Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Institution: Stetson University

Explore more insights in:

American Politics Books Political Science Social Sciences

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Stetson University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy describes how corporate greed led to scandal, corruption, and the January 6th insurrection―and how we can stop it from happening again

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 11, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The speaker reflects on their personal reaction to the January 6th, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which served as inspiration for their book discussing political scandals, particularly those related to campaign financing. They engaged with peers and analyzed data from the Federal Election Commission and platforms like Open Secrets to examine lesser-known money-related scandals. Much of their research focused on federal crimes involving campaign finance, involving extensive reviews of Department of Justice trial transcripts.

The speaker notes that January 6th wasn't well funded, suggesting this may have contributed to its failure. However, they express concern over a potential future insurrection that could be better financed. They investigate corporate funds backing groups like the Rule of Law Defense Fund, highlighting that substantial corporate contributions originated from significant companies, which did not anticipate supporting initiatives leading to insurrection.

Post-January 6th, several corporations pledged not to fund politicians who objected to the electoral results, yet many contradicted these promises later by donating to the so-called "Sedition Caucus". The speaker elaborates on the concept of "dark money" in politics—funds influencing elections where the source is obscured. They define dark money specifically as that spent on electoral politics, distinct from other forms of political spending.

The discussion includes a historical perspective on dark money's impact, particularly in the 2020 elections, and the necessity for greater transparency in campaign financing. They suggest possible regulatory changes, including increased transparency from the Federal Election Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The speaker warns against repeating historical patterns where corporate funding undermined democracy, drawing an extreme parallel to Germany in 1933, where corporate support facilitated the rise of the Nazi Party.

Overall, the speaker advocates for enhanced scrutiny of corporate political contributions and urges voters to hold accountable those who finance anti-democratic efforts.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Inspiration from January 6th Events**: The author is motivated to write a book about political scandals as a response to the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, reflecting on how personal the event felt to them.

2. **Role of Money in Politics**: The author conducted research on money in politics scandals, examining data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and other aggregator sites to understand how campaign finance crimes occur, emphasizing the importance of financial transparency in electoral politics.

3. **Corporate Funding and the Insurrection**: The video discusses the involvement of corporate funding in groups associated with the January 6th insurrection, particularly the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Most corporate donors likely did not intend for their contributions to support an insurrection, but many broke promises not to fund certain political actors afterward.

4. **Dark Money Definition and Impact**: The author defines 'dark money' as funds used in electoral politics without transparency about their origins, leading to significant impacts on elections. For instance, a billion dollars in dark money was spent in the 2020 election, influencing what voters see and often funding negative political advertisements.

5. **Call for Regulatory Changes**: The author advocates for increased transparency in political funding through regulatory changes, suggesting that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) should be more active, and that publicly traded corporations should disclose their political spending to banish dark money from elections. They also draw parallels between historical events and current trends in corporate political funding, warning against the potential risks to democracy.

Export as PDF
Here are key quotes extracted from the video you :

1. **Personal Reflection on January 6th**:
- "Think I took the attack on the US Capitol on January 6th, very personally. And so I was inspired to write this book by the events on January 6th."

2. **Exploration of Money in Politics**:
- "I ended up talking to a lot of my peers in the field, um, sort of trying to get a feel for what they thought the least appreciated money and politics scandals were."
- "I spent an enormous amount of time looking at the DOJ and going through criminal trial transcripts."

3. **Concerns about Future Events**:
- "I worry about what happens if there's a second January of the sixth that has better, um, deeper pockets."

4. **Corporate Funding and Political Events**:
- "The Rule of Law Defense Fund, despite its Orwellian name, is not really about the rule of law at all."
- "None of these corporations thought that they were going to be helping to fund an insurrection when they gave that money."

5. **Corporate Promises and Actions Post-January 6th**:
- "Some of these corporations... promised right after January 6th that they would not fund the Sedition Caucus. And all of those corporations broke their promises."

6. **Defining Dark Money**:
- "When I speak of dark money, I mean that money that is spent in electoral politics in order to influence Americans votes in a way that is... spent such that the average person cannot tell where that money has come from."

7. **Impact of Dark Money**:
- "In the 2020 election, there was a billion dollars of dark money that was spent... and Biden ended up winning."

8. **Transparency in Political Funding**:
- "One proposal would be to require more transparency in the electoral system."
- "One of the things that I've long suggested is trying to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a rule that requires transparency of what would otherwise be dark money."

9. **Historical Comparison & Warning**:
- "If we don't know that history, we may be doomed to repeat it."
- "In their hour of need, [the Nazi party] turn to German industrialists to bail them out... and the corporate leaders eat it all up and fund the Nazi party."

This selection captures some of the central themes and insights regarding the influence of money in politics, the implications of dark money, and the author’s reflections on historical lessons related to democracy.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:03.925
Think I took the attack on the US Capitol on

00:03.925 --> 00:05.485
January 6th, very personally.

00:06.425 --> 00:09.085
And so I was inspired to write this book

00:09.585 --> 00:11.485
by the events on January 6th.

00:11.705 --> 00:14.925
So for the modern day scandals, I ended up talking to a lot

00:14.925 --> 00:19.205
of my peers in the field, sort of trying to get a

00:19.875 --> 00:23.805
feel for what they thought the

00:25.105 --> 00:28.735
least appreciated money and politics scandals were.

00:30.255 --> 00:35.035
Uh, and then I also looked at the FEC,

00:35.035 --> 00:36.395
that's the Federal Election Commission.

00:36.395 --> 00:39.875
Here in the US they have data on

00:40.975 --> 00:43.195
how money in politics flows.

00:43.785 --> 00:47.475
Then I looked at aggregator sites like Open Secrets,

00:47.685 --> 00:52.155
which has much more user friendly versions of the FECs data.

00:53.055 --> 00:54.955
Uh, and,

00:55.105 --> 00:57.475
because so many of the stories

00:57.475 --> 01:00.835
that I ended up writing about were actually federal crimes.

01:01.795 --> 01:04.395
I spent an enormous amount of time,

01:04.585 --> 01:06.835
looking at the DOJ

01:08.025 --> 01:10.765
and going through criminal trial transcripts.

01:11.185 --> 01:15.205
And so for some of these, cases, in order

01:15.225 --> 01:19.245
to get the sort of gotcha moment of someone confessing

01:19.245 --> 01:23.725
to a campaign finance crime, I went through in some cases,

01:24.265 --> 01:26.405
hundreds of pages of transcripts

01:26.425 --> 01:29.925
and with other really long trials, thousands of pages

01:30.025 --> 01:33.605
of transcripts, just to find that moment when the defendant

01:34.325 --> 01:37.925
actually admitted that they had committed a campaign finance

01:37.975 --> 01:39.365
crime On the upside.

01:39.785 --> 01:43.485
Uh, January 6th was not particularly well financed.

01:43.685 --> 01:46.765
I think that might be one of the reasons that it failed.

01:47.465 --> 01:49.645
Uh, one of the things that I really worry about in this book

01:49.645 --> 01:52.845
is what happens if there's a second January of the sixth

01:53.035 --> 01:55.645
that has better, deeper pockets.

01:56.535 --> 02:00.515
Uh, but in the January 6th that we've already experienced,

02:00.895 --> 02:04.475
one of the groups that put out robocalls

02:05.395 --> 02:08.675
urging members of the public to come to the capitol

02:08.855 --> 02:12.715
and fight was a group called the Rule

02:12.715 --> 02:13.955
of Law Defense Fund.

02:14.415 --> 02:17.675
So the Rule of Law Defense Fund, despite its Orwellian name,

02:17.855 --> 02:19.675
is not really about the rule of law at all.

02:20.295 --> 02:25.195
Um, it's a offshoot of another group called the Republican

02:25.875 --> 02:28.715
Attorneys General Association, otherwise known as ragga,

02:29.455 --> 02:34.315
and a's funding is over 50% corporate.

02:35.065 --> 02:39.285
Uh, so what I looked at was the corporate funding of Rag A

02:39.985 --> 02:43.325
in 2020, which would've been right before January 6th.

02:44.015 --> 02:48.635
And some of the top donors to Ragga included,

02:48.895 --> 02:52.995
Anthem, blue Cross, Altria, Comcast, Walmart, at

02:53.015 --> 02:56.155
and TCVS, home Depot,

02:56.735 --> 02:59.245
Anheuser-Busch, Fs, and Pfizer.

03:00.185 --> 03:02.765
So on the one hand, I think it's fair to say

03:02.765 --> 03:06.525
that I would imagine none of these corporations thought

03:06.525 --> 03:08.165
that they were going to be helping

03:08.225 --> 03:10.325
to fund an insurrection when they gave that money.

03:11.195 --> 03:13.175
But I think what's been really troubling

03:13.195 --> 03:17.215
to see is corporate political spending post January 6th.

03:17.995 --> 03:22.415
And some of those corporations that I just named came out

03:22.425 --> 03:23.615
after January 6th

03:23.755 --> 03:26.255
and said, we are not going to fund

03:26.565 --> 03:29.495
what some pejoratively called the Sedition Caucus.

03:29.595 --> 03:33.735
So the Sedition Caucus are those Republicans who objected

03:33.735 --> 03:37.335
to Biden's lawful electoral college votes.

03:38.435 --> 03:42.415
Uh, and so some of these,

03:43.095 --> 03:45.335
corporations including at

03:45.355 --> 03:47.175
and t, Comcast, home Depot, Walmart,

03:47.395 --> 03:49.695
and Pfizer promised right

03:49.695 --> 03:51.335
after January 6th that they would not fund

03:51.355 --> 03:52.415
the Sedition Caucus.

03:53.075 --> 03:56.855
And all of those corporations broke their promises.

03:56.915 --> 03:59.455
So when we look at this almost four years later,

04:00.125 --> 04:03.095
they all gave to members of the Sedition Caucus

04:03.095 --> 04:04.455
through their corporate pacs,

04:04.455 --> 04:06.855
which I think is really quite disturbing in my work.

04:07.195 --> 04:10.495
Uh, when I speak of dark money, I mean that money

04:10.605 --> 04:15.015
that is spent in electoral politics in order

04:15.195 --> 04:19.655
to influence Americans votes in a way

04:19.805 --> 04:22.615
that is, spent such that

04:23.355 --> 04:26.215
the average person cannot tell where

04:26.215 --> 04:27.295
that money has come from.

04:27.995 --> 04:30.535
Now, different people have different

04:30.535 --> 04:32.215
definitions of dark money.

04:33.155 --> 04:37.575
Uh, for example, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse,

04:37.995 --> 04:41.815
who represents Rhode Island in, the US Senate,

04:42.555 --> 04:45.095
he has a much more expansive view of dark money,

04:45.235 --> 04:49.895
and he would lump in money that is spent around,

04:49.915 --> 04:50.975
the Supreme Court.

04:51.635 --> 04:53.815
But that does not meet my definition

04:53.815 --> 04:55.735
because we don't elect the Supreme Court.

04:56.075 --> 04:57.935
So I am only looking at money

04:58.005 --> 05:00.775
that goes into electoral politics.

05:01.555 --> 05:06.405
And the way that dark money becomes dark is it goes through

05:07.205 --> 05:09.805
a opaque intermediary.

05:09.985 --> 05:13.125
So typically, if you have a corporation that doesn't want

05:13.125 --> 05:15.845
to spend under its doing business as name,

05:16.555 --> 05:19.765
what they will do is they will give it to 5 0 1 4

05:19.825 --> 05:21.005
or a 5 0 1 6.

05:21.625 --> 05:26.565
So a 5 0 1 1 4 is a social welfare organization.

05:26.845 --> 05:29.645
A 5 0 1 6 is a trade association.

05:30.265 --> 05:32.125
And once that corporate money goes

05:32.125 --> 05:37.085
through those opaque nonprofits, then the public cannot tell

05:37.295 --> 05:38.685
where that money came from.

05:39.145 --> 05:43.005
So what you can see in American politics is, you know,

05:43.075 --> 05:45.365
various C fours

05:45.385 --> 05:48.925
or c sixes sub with very Orwellian names,

05:49.585 --> 05:51.605
spending in politics.

05:51.825 --> 05:54.165
But then when you try to figure out where

05:54.165 --> 05:56.285
that money really came from, you can't.

05:56.465 --> 05:58.285
And that's the dark money problem.

05:59.175 --> 06:01.995
Now, depending on the election,

06:02.705 --> 06:05.315
dark money can have a huge impact.

06:05.575 --> 06:08.755
So for example, in the 2020 election,

06:09.125 --> 06:11.595
there was a billion dollars of dark money that was spent,

06:12.175 --> 06:14.915
and it's always difficult to know

06:15.705 --> 06:19.035
what is outcome determinative in a really close election.

06:19.855 --> 06:23.675
But, a lot of that dark money actually came in on,

06:24.135 --> 06:27.515
on a pro Biden side, and Biden ends up winning.

06:27.735 --> 06:30.875
So it's always difficult to suss out whether

06:31.185 --> 06:33.315
that was the difference that made the difference,

06:34.395 --> 06:37.435
but it can really impact,

06:38.225 --> 06:40.195
what American voters see.

06:40.295 --> 06:43.635
So typically dark money tends to fund

06:44.185 --> 06:45.875
more negative political ads.

06:46.495 --> 06:50.235
Um, I think it sort of talks to the hesitance

06:50.255 --> 06:54.715
of people putting their name on really ugly attack ads.

06:55.635 --> 06:57.575
And I think that is one of the things

06:57.645 --> 06:59.415
that shapes American politics.

06:59.555 --> 07:03.535
The two big spikes in dark money were when Obama was up

07:03.535 --> 07:05.055
for reelection in 2012,

07:05.755 --> 07:09.055
and when Trump was for up for reelection in 2020.

07:10.365 --> 07:12.855
This election has become a little bit weird

07:12.855 --> 07:16.615
because our incumbent suddenly dropped out.

07:16.795 --> 07:18.895
So we'll see how that scrambles the race.

07:18.965 --> 07:21.695
Some of the things that I've worked on for,

07:22.565 --> 07:24.575
over a decade at this point is trying

07:24.575 --> 07:27.095
to bring more transparency to money in politics.

07:27.875 --> 07:31.015
And that could be done through a number

07:31.475 --> 07:34.855
of different regulatory changes in the United States.

07:35.635 --> 07:38.815
The Federal Election Commission could have rules

07:39.165 --> 07:42.575
that require more transparency of money and politics.

07:43.235 --> 07:47.095
One of the problems that, American elections suffer

07:47.095 --> 07:51.975
through is our FEC is very inactive,

07:52.395 --> 07:54.455
and it was sort of designed to be that way.

07:55.085 --> 07:58.735
It's one of the few entities, in the US government

07:58.735 --> 08:00.855
that has an even number of commissioners.

08:00.915 --> 08:03.015
So it has three Republicans and three Democrats,

08:03.395 --> 08:06.535
and they need four commissioners to agree to do anything.

08:06.555 --> 08:09.015
And so they often agree to do exactly nothing

08:09.015 --> 08:11.095
because they can't get that fourth vote.

08:11.435 --> 08:12.735
One proposal would be

08:13.805 --> 08:16.975
require more transparency in the electoral system.

08:17.595 --> 08:19.135
You could also require more

08:19.135 --> 08:21.215
transparency in the corporate system.

08:21.355 --> 08:25.215
One of the things that I've long suggested is trying

08:25.675 --> 08:26.855
to get the Securities

08:26.855 --> 08:30.175
and Exchange Commission to promulgate a rule that

08:30.735 --> 08:33.175
requires transparency of what would

08:33.175 --> 08:35.535
otherwise be dark money that is coming out

08:35.535 --> 08:37.255
of publicly traded corporations.

08:38.075 --> 08:42.015
Um, another thing that I suggest in this book is that

08:42.595 --> 08:46.935
voters and investors put, candidates

08:47.355 --> 08:50.095
and the corporations that support them

08:50.275 --> 08:54.775
to a democracy litmus test, they hope that they learn more,

08:55.345 --> 08:59.065
Uh, about the sort of dark history

08:59.405 --> 09:03.345
of corporations threatening, threatening, democracy.

09:04.285 --> 09:09.065
Uh, one of the things that I draw on is

09:09.645 --> 09:12.865
the, I know very extreme example of

09:14.015 --> 09:15.785
Germany in 1933,

09:16.245 --> 09:18.785
but I feel like if we don't know that history,

09:19.085 --> 09:20.585
we may be doomed to repeat it.

09:21.125 --> 09:25.505
So one of the things that happened in, early 19,

09:25.525 --> 09:28.705
33 in Germany is we had a Nazi party

09:28.705 --> 09:30.065
that was completely broke,

09:31.045 --> 09:34.105
and in their hour of need, they turn

09:34.405 --> 09:37.025
to German industrialists to bail them out.

09:37.725 --> 09:40.585
And they pitch a very anti-democratic

09:41.265 --> 09:43.585
spiel at these, corporate leaders.

09:43.925 --> 09:46.065
And the corporate leaders eat it all up

09:46.285 --> 09:48.345
and fund the Nazi party,

09:48.405 --> 09:51.945
and they go from being in the red, in the black.

09:52.165 --> 09:56.505
And it was, they used that money to,

09:57.575 --> 10:02.025
even eventually take control of, the German government

10:02.365 --> 10:05.905
and do all sorts of pernicious things once in power.

10:06.605 --> 10:10.505
And I don't want that, a scenario

10:10.965 --> 10:14.705
to repeat itself in the United States,

10:15.405 --> 10:16.065
in present day.

"Reflections on the Capitol Attack: Corporate Influence and the Dark Money Dilemma in American Politics"

00:00:00 - Think I took the attack on the US Capitol on January 6th, very personally. And so I was inspired to write this book by the events on January 6th. So for the modern day scandals, I ended up talking to a lot of my peers in the field, sort of trying to get a feel for what they thought the least appreciated money and politics scandals were. and then I also looked at the FEC, that's the Federal Election Commission. Here in the US they have data on how money in politics flows. Then I looked at aggregator sites like Open Secrets,
00:00:53 - and, because so many of the stories that I ended up writing about were actually federal crimes. I spent an enormous amount of time, looking at the DOJ and going through criminal trial transcripts. And so for some of these, cases, in order to get the sort of gotcha moment of someone confessing to a campaign finance crime, I went through in some cases, hundreds of pages of transcripts and with other really long trials, thousands of pages
00:01:34 - actually admitted that they had committed a campaign finance crime On the upside. January 6th was not particularly well financed. I think that might be one of the reasons that it failed. one of the things that I really worry about in this book is what happens if there's a second January of the sixth that has better, deeper pockets. but in the January 6th that we've already experienced, one of the groups that put out robocalls urging members of the public to come to the capitol and fight was a group called the Rule
00:02:14 - So the Rule of Law Defense Fund, despite its Orwellian name, is not really about the rule of law at all. it's a offshoot of another group called the Republican Attorneys General Association, otherwise known as ragga, and a's funding is over 50% corporate. so what I looked at was the corporate funding of Rag A in 2020, which would've been right before January 6th. And some of the top donors to Ragga included, Anthem, blue Cross, Altria, Comcast, Walmart, at
00:02:56 - Anheuser-Busch, Fs, and Pfizer. So on the one hand, I think it's fair to say that I would imagine none of these corporations thought that they were going to be helping to fund an insurrection when they gave that money. But I think what's been really troubling to see is corporate political spending post January 6th. And some of those corporations that I just named came out after January 6th and said, we are not going to fund what some pejoratively called the Sedition Caucus. So the Sedition Caucus are those Republicans who objected
00:03:38 - and so some of these, corporations including at and t, Comcast, home Depot, Walmart, and Pfizer promised right after January 6th that they would not fund the Sedition Caucus. And all of those corporations broke their promises. So when we look at this almost four years later, they all gave to members of the Sedition Caucus through their corporate pacs, which I think is really quite disturbing in my work. when I speak of dark money, I mean that money that is spent in electoral politics in order

"Unveiling Dark Money: The Opaque Forces Shaping American Politics"

00:04:19 - that is, spent such that the average person cannot tell where that money has come from. Now, different people have different definitions of dark money. for example, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who represents Rhode Island in, the US Senate, he has a much more expansive view of dark money, and he would lump in money that is spent around, the Supreme Court. But that does not meet my definition because we don't elect the Supreme Court.
00:04:58 - that goes into electoral politics. And the way that dark money becomes dark is it goes through a opaque intermediary. So typically, if you have a corporation that doesn't want to spend under its doing business as name, what they will do is they will give it to 5 0 1 4 or a 5 0 1 6. So a 5 0 1 1 4 is a social welfare organization. A 5 0 1 6 is a trade association. And once that corporate money goes through those opaque nonprofits, then the public cannot tell
00:05:39 - So what you can see in American politics is, you know, various C fours or c sixes sub with very Orwellian names, spending in politics. But then when you try to figure out where that money really came from, you can't. And that's the dark money problem. Now, depending on the election, dark money can have a huge impact. So for example, in the 2020 election, there was a billion dollars of dark money that was spent, and it's always difficult to know what is outcome determinative in a really close election.
00:06:24 - on a pro Biden side, and Biden ends up winning. So it's always difficult to suss out whether that was the difference that made the difference, but it can really impact, what American voters see. So typically dark money tends to fund more negative political ads. I think it sort of talks to the hesitance of people putting their name on really ugly attack ads. And I think that is one of the things that shapes American politics. The two big spikes in dark money were when Obama was up
00:07:05 - and when Trump was for up for reelection in 2020. This election has become a little bit weird because our incumbent suddenly dropped out. So we'll see how that scrambles the race. Some of the things that I've worked on for, over a decade at this point is trying to bring more transparency to money in politics. And that could be done through a number of different regulatory changes in the United States. The Federal Election Commission could have rules that require more transparency of money and politics. One of the problems that, American elections suffer
00:07:52 - and it was sort of designed to be that way. It's one of the few entities, in the US government that has an even number of commissioners. So it has three Republicans and three Democrats, and they need four commissioners to agree to do anything. And so they often agree to do exactly nothing because they can't get that fourth vote. One proposal would be require more transparency in the electoral system. You could also require more transparency in the corporate system. One of the things that I've long suggested is trying to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a rule that

"Dark Money and the Historical Lessons of Corporate Influence on Democracy"

00:08:33 - otherwise be dark money that is coming out of publicly traded corporations. another thing that I suggest in this book is that voters and investors put, candidates and the corporations that support them to a democracy litmus test, they hope that they learn more, about the sort of dark history of corporations threatening, threatening, democracy. one of the things that I draw on is the, I know very extreme example of
00:09:16 - but I feel like if we don't know that history, we may be doomed to repeat it. So one of the things that happened in, early 19, 33 in Germany is we had a Nazi party that was completely broke, and in their hour of need, they turn to German industrialists to bail them out. And they pitch a very anti-democratic spiel at these, corporate leaders. And the corporate leaders eat it all up and fund the Nazi party, and they go from being in the red, in the black. And it was, they used that money to,
00:10:15 - and do all sorts of pernicious things once in power. And I don't want that, a scenario to repeat itself in the United States, in present day.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Summaries

Corporatocracy

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼