Current law invites foreign governments and agents to corrupt U.S. politics. Campaign finance laws also breed corruption inside the United States.

Federal election laws and Supreme Court rulings have combined to create fertile conditions that spread the disease of corruption – while holding no one accountable.

The use of “dark money” has always been an issue in U.S. politics. People who have wanted to sway political opinions and buy votes anonymously could find ways to do it.

But the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United created an epidemic of illegal and unethical behavior. The problem is rooted in the amount of anonymous funds being raised and spent as well as in the players involved.

One of the organizations trying to track dark money and its growth is OpenSecrets.org, which explains who the players might be and the campaigns and candidates in which they are most active.

OpenSecrets.org tracks mostly federal money – not what happens at the state and local level. It also points out that a lot of groups don’t report their political spending to the Federal Election Commission.

Still, early in 2019, the group noted that dark money had surpassed $1 billion. That figure was only what was reported to the FEC, the group said, representing a fraction of what is really being spent by anonymous sources to sway elections.

Who are these anonymous sources?

A recent headline in USA Today provides an answer.

“Supreme Court and Citizens United led Trump, Giuliani & friends into the Ukraine swamp”

In that opinion piece, the authors make the case that the current environment invites foreign governments and agents of foreign interests to corrupt our elections.

In another case, Republicans at the FEC blocked further investigation into whether Russia made illegal political contributions to the NRA, which spent $30 million supporting Donald Trump in 2016.

The $30 million was part of a splurge of spending in 2016 by the gun rights group, which saw total expenditures rise to $419 million, according to OpenSecrets.org

“As a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, the NRA-ILA does not have to disclose the donors who fueled its record spending. And in 2016 elections alone, this ‘dark money’ arm of the NRA spent as much as it had in every election going back to 1992, combined.”

To be clear, this is not just a Republican issue.

Democrats love their dark money too.

The Center for Public Integrity published a piece showing how Democrats used dark money to help Sen. Doug Jones win a special election in Alabama in 2017, and it noted that dark money groups were welcome partners of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

This should be an easy one for Americans interested in accountability.

Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. But it makes no guarantees that you can hide your identity and your agenda by laundering money through dark money groups. (Many of which, to add insult to injury, are tax exempt.)

The Supreme Court disagrees on that point. It basically has ruled that money is speech, and that corporations and political groups have the same rights as individuals.

The only feasible remedy is through Congress. But Congress won’t act unless voters demand better reporting requirements.

The need for accountability far outweighs any argument for anonymity. Americans have a right to know who is bankrolling political candidates and causes.

 

Here are some of the things I’m wishing for this Christmas.

1. I wish more cars had working turn signals.

It’s amazing how many vehicles lack working turn signals. You see it at intersections, as people switch lanes and as drivers pass other vehicles on the highway.

My unscientific guess is that half of all cars are affected, even new, expensive ones.

It’s either a national scandal or half of all drivers won’t bother to comply with even easy, painless laws.

I admit it might be hard to use your cellphone, steer, drink and use the turn signal all at the same time. But you would do your fellow drivers and yourself a favor if you would give it a try.

And if the Christmas spirit strikes, an even bigger gift to fellow drivers would be to put down the phone and drink and focus on driving.

2. I wish more pet owners understood that not everyone is as enamored with their dogs and cats as they are.

3. I wish every state in the nation required government officials at all levels to fully and publicly disclose financial incentives that are provided in the name of economic development.

The notion that companies demand secrecy is balderdash. If it’s a good deal, company and public officials should be happy to disclose it and discuss why it makes sense for that community or state.

4. I wish someone would “fix” voicemail.

Specifically, I’m talking about those voicemail systems used by businesses and government agencies that seem designed to anger and frustrate callers who try to navigate them.

5. I wish people wouldn’t get riled when they hear other people speaking a different language.

It’s worth remembering that Spanish was spoken in what would become the United States long before the British showed up.

Historians think the first Christmas church service in what would become the United States likely was a Catholic Mass in Tallahassee, Florida. The holiday would have been observed by Spanish-speakers, including explorer Hernando de Soto and those traveling with him as he was encamped in the area between October 1539 and March 1540.

And in El Paso, Texas, historians say Spanish conquistadors, led by Juan de Onate, held a Thanksgiving celebration with the Manso tribe in April 1598. That was decades before the Pilgrims and Indians in New England sat down for their Thanksgiving meal.

Our nation has a long history of multiple languages, not just Spanish, but German, Italian, Polish, and others, including the many native American languages spoken before Europeans showed up on the continent.

6. I wish more people appreciated how good they have it.

Over the past 50 years, the air we breathe and water we drink have gotten cleaner.

Air and road travel are safer, with the number of highway fatalities dropping from more than 50,000 in 1980 to about 36,000 last year, although there are more drivers on the road now.

Crime rates also are on the way down, while survival rates for cancer are up.

Around the globe, poverty and hunger rates are in decline.

That’s not to say that as a nation and state we don’t have challenges and important work to do. But as we hear the fear-mongering that is especially loud and strong during election years, it’s worth remembering the good stuff.

It doesn’t take prognosticating skill to predict that Kansas Democrats and Republicans will argue about taxes in 2020.

Of course they will. But the 2020 argument should be especially interesting to voters as officials decide not only if tax relief is coming, but who should benefit.

First the state will have to determine whether it can afford to reduce taxes.

There are signs it can, as state revenues have been meeting or surpassing expectations for more than a year. That’s good news after the debacle that was also known as the tenure of Gov. Sam Brownback.

Brownback and Republicans in the Legislature eliminated income taxes for hundreds of thousands of businesses and farms. They promised tax cuts were a special kind of magic; that they would create more tax revenue, not less.

They were wrong – by about a billion dollars.

Rather than admit his mistake, Brownback made things worse. He ran up the debt. He repeatedly cut funds to schools and virtually every other service and program. With help from the Legislature, he raised sales taxes.

Finally in 2017, even many Republicans balked. They worked with Democrats to restore sanity to the state’s income tax policies.

As a result, Kansas now stands on more stable fiscal ground.

Still, Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat who took office about a year ago, has made clear that she’s not eager to cut taxes.

Recent revenue reports, however, indicate that Kansas should be able to provide some tax relief.

Kelly knows that, and she has appointed a tax council to recommend changes in Kansas tax policy.

According to reporting by John Hanna of Associated Press, Kelly and her council seem focused on relief for those who pay sales taxes and property taxes.

But Republican leaders in the Legislature remain insistent about tax relief for businesses and wealthier Kansans. Last year they passed legislation to allow Kansans to maximize their savings from the 2017 federal income tax cuts that mostly benefited businesses and high-income taxpayers. Kelly vetoed the bill.

As Kansas and its legislators ready for the 2020 session, it’s worth comparing Kansas’ tax burden to other states.

In one analysis, WalletHub ranked Kansas 20^th among the states for its tax burden. New York was No. 1, with the highest overall tax burden. What’s interesting about the WalletHub ranking is that it examined different kinds of taxes. Kansas ranked 18^th in sales taxes, 13^th in property taxes and 38^th in individual income taxes.

Those rankings don’t provide a good argument for income tax breaks.

A piece in Progressive Farmer found that property taxes for Kansas farmers increased 29.7 percent over five years, based on federal survey data. That was the third highest in the country. And many farmers in the state will tell you that their property taxes have gone up a lot more than that.

When it comes to sales tax, Kansas typically ranks poorly. The burden is especially heavy because Kansas is one of a very few states that taxes groceries at the same rate it taxes other goods. That hits low-income families the hardest.

As it ponders changes to taxes, Kansas should keep in mind such comparisons and rankings. They tell us more about what’s fair and reasonable than complaints from special interests looking for yet another round of income tax breaks.

Which is more important, loyalty or honesty?

Many supporters of President Donald Trump believe loyalty is more important.

Case in point: They are working hard to destroy the character and careers of federal employees who have raised concerns that Trump might have abused his power and violated the law.

Trump’s supporters are following the lead of the president, who frequently calls his critics disloyal, accuses them of treason and suggests they be jailed.

Demands for unconditional loyalty also are made by officials such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has said that those who disagree with Trump’s conduct should resign, rather than report possible criminal activity.

“If you reach a point where … they’re asking you to do something that’s illegal or something that you find just violates your core moral principles, you have a singular option, and that is to leave the organization,” Pompeo said.

According to a Topeka Capital Journal article, Pompeo was talking about dissenting points of view in the State Department, where longtime public servants make a career of working for both Republicans and Democrats.

Pompeo’s comments are worth considering in the context of whistleblowers and impeachment proceedings, primarily because they run counter to good practices for both government and business.

No reputable company or organization equates disloyalty with whistleblowing.

In fact, most businesses and other entities understand that the interests of the organization supersede those of any supervisor or boss. That’s why companies and organizations have written codes that strongly encourage employees to speak up when they see possible misconduct. Further, they promise to protect employees who report suspected wrongdoing.

This is from Boeing’s material on the subject:

“At Boeing, we believe that creating an environment where employees are comfortable raising issues and concerns without fear of retaliation enables openness which can lead to improved business performance and inspire greater innovation. Boeing maintains policies and procedures to encourage employees to report concerns and seek guidance, using confidential and, when preferred, anonymous methods …”

And here’s a bit from Microsoft:

“Employees will not suffer adverse consequences or retaliation for … Refusing to do something that violates the Microsoft Standards of Business Conduct, policies, or the law, even if this refusal results in the loss of business to Microsoft.”

Now, companies don’t always follow their own codes perfectly. But the rules are there, defining their values in black and white: Your duty is to the company, not your boss.

Government agencies have similar rules, such as this one from the Executive Branch’s Code of Federal Regulations: “Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.”

Federal employees are not just allowed to report possible wrongdoing, they are required to do so. Put another way: Our federal employees’ loyalty should be to the country and the Constitution, not to their boss.

Lately, though, those who follow the ethics code have been vilified by the president and members of Congress. Because facts of the investigation don’t support the president’s inaccurate claims, Trump and his supporters malign the character of those testifying at House impeachment proceedings.

Rather than doubt the principles and patriotism of men and women who follow the rules by reporting possible misconduct, Americans should question the values of those resort to dishonest smears to save the boss’s job.