WASHINGTON _ In announcing her "no" vote on federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill cited her belief that Kavanaugh would rule in favor of protecting "dark money" in politics.
Although millions of dollars are pouring into the state on her behalf and on behalf of her main November election opponent, the Democrat McCaskill has long been against that dark money _ large donations given anonymously for campaign ads.
The door to them was opened in a 5-4 2010 Supreme Court decision on a case brought by conservative group Citizens United.
McCaskill's decision, and her linkage to dark money as the prime reason she is opposing Kavanaugh, lands smack in the middle of a tough Senate re-election campaign in Missouri in which McCaskill has constantly attacked her Republican opponent, Attorney General Josh Hawley, for favoring its continued use.
Hawley says she's got selective outrage and accused McCaskill of making a political calculation on Kavanaugh.
McCaskill is outraising Hawley by 4-1. If Republicans are going to be competitive on TV in this nationally pivotal race, spending from outside groups _ including dark-money groups _ will have to fill the GOP gap.
And already, Missouri is the top target of outside spending, with more than $32 million so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. About $16.3 million of it has been spent attacking McCaskill.
Some of that spending is by political committees that disclose donors. But two of the biggest players so far have been dark-money groups aligned with the Koch Brothers of Kansas on the Republican side, and with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.
According to Center for Responsive Politics analysis, the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity has already dumped $3.9 million into ads and other political activity in Missouri. Schumer's Majority Forward has spent $1.3 million; a separate Schumer PAC that discloses donors has spent millions more in Missouri.
In her explanation as to why she will vote against Kavanaugh, McCaskill cited "issue ads" that "are now flooding the airways in this nation to directly influence election outcomes, drowning the concept of individuals having the strongest voice in our democracy."
Those "issue ads" are precisely the kind run by Koch, Schumer and others who operate political committees as nonprofits, thereby shielding them from disclosure requirements of federal election law.
McCaskill's linking of her Kavanaugh decision to dark money comes two years after 70 percent of Missouri voters approved a change in the state Constitution capping contributions to individual candidates and parties, and banned contributions between political action committees. A federal appeals court ruled this month the latter provision is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Some of the attacks from outside or dark-money groups on McCaskill have been aimed at her wealth through her husband, Joseph Shepard, a wealthy businessman.
White women voted in a slight majority for President Donald Trump in 2016 and white women _ especially those living in suburbs _ are now a major swing vote in election-after-election in 2018, including in Missouri.
By tying her opposition to Kavanaugh to spending by outside groups in her race, McCaskill tacitly connects her decision with her long-standing opposition to dark-money spending that is fueling many of the negative attacks against her through her husband.
That tactic _ attacking a female candidate through her husband _ may not sit well with some female voters, that pivotal bloc. So tying the Kavanaugh decision to dark money tacitly connects to McCaskill's campaign blasts against it, and against Hawley for defending it.
Missouri Republican consultant Gregg Keller said that McCaskill, herself, has said that she and her husband share everything, making their wealth fair game.
"I haven't seen any data that bears out Democrats' predictions of suburban women's votes" moving to Democrats, he said.
Additionally, McCaskill's expressed declaration that the 36-year-old sexual harassment allegations leveled against Kavanaugh didn't factor in her decision separates her Kavanaugh vote from the political firestorm over that nomination.
Geoff Garin, a veteran Democratic pollster, tweeted that a "no" vote on Kavanaugh does not necessarily hurt Democratic senators, like McCaskill, who face tough re-elections in states won by Trump.
"In my research I have found that red state voters accept a senator's decision to vote no on Kavanaugh if it is based on serious and substantial rationale, as is clearly the case with Sen. McCaskill," he wrote.
McCaskill has been a consistent critic of Citizens United, and she cited her fears about Neil Gorsuch's position on dark money when she announced she would vote against President Donald Trump's first Supreme Court nominee last year.
"No, the 2018 Senate race was not a calculation in Claire's decision on Kavanaugh," said McCaskill's campaign spokeswoman, Meira Bernstein.
But Republicans see clear politics.
"Claire McCaskill and Schumer are close _ so close their families vacation together," Kelli Ford, spokeswoman for Hawley said. "If she is serious about getting rid of dark money she would ask Schumer to get out of Missouri. She's only against the dark money that's spent against her."
But McCaskill said at a Missouri Press Association debate last week that she has always opposed Citizens United.
"I've said over and over again, ignore every commercial if you can't figure out who paid for it," she said. "I don't care if it's for me or against me. They're terrible."
