According to Politico’s Morning Score, Democratic ‘dark money’ group VoteVets will spend at least $3.3 million to support Cal Cunningham – making it the primary spender attempting to drag Cunningham’s lifeless campaign across the finish line.
But Cunningham’s rhetoric about dark money couldn’t be more antithetical to how he’s running his campaign:
- Cunningham said he “support[s] a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end the flow of unlimited corporate and dark money into our elections.”
- Cunningham said he supports requiring “greater transparency in political spending from dark money groups”
- Cunningham has also touted his endorsement from the Democratic outside group End Citizens United and said he supports “getting big money out of politics.”
And yet, Cunningham has remained silent as VoteVets attempts to buy the North Carolina Democratic primary on his behalf without disclosing a single donor or expenditure.
So when Cunningham pontificates about dark money, does he really mean his standards only apply to outside groups that oppose his candidacy? Or will Cunningham apply the same standard to all outside groups by calling on VoteVets to stop pouring dark money into North Carolina to influence the Democratic primary, and asking them to disclose their donors?