Aa
'Dark Money' Hits $172 Million In 2012 Election, Half Of Independent Group Spending
WASHINGTON -- In May, the conservative nonprofit group Crossroads GPS, founded by famed political strategist Karl Rove and other leading Republican operatives, ran a television ad showcasing a fictional mother who had supported Barack Obama in 2008. The mom was disappointed in Obama's performance, saddled as she was with two adult children who had moved back in with her due to the stalled economy. The ad was the centerpiece of a $25 million campaign -- one of the biggest ad buys so far in the 2012 election cycle.
Despite the fact that the ad's central message was the failure of the president, it wasn't considered a campaign ad under election laws. Although the group spends tens of millions of dollars on ads targeting Democratic candidates, Crossroads GPS is organized as a "social welfare nonprofit" under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code and therefore not subject to the rules governing political organizations.
Whereas super PACs are required to register with the Federal Election Commission and disclose their donors -- people like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has given millions of dollars to conservative groups so far this election cycle -- nonprofits like Crossroads GPS and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their donors secret. As a result, there is a great flood of campaign spending this election cycle for which there is no official paper trail.
"Clearly there's a market for people who want to influence elections without identifying themselves," said University of California-Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen. "For every Sheldon Adelson, who wants to show how important he is, there are many people who want to keep their identity secret."
Through July 26, politically involved groups that do not disclose their donors have spent at least $172 million on campaigns that include television, radio and Internet advertising, according to a Huffington Post review of FEC reports, advertising buys, press releases and news stories. Total spending by these groups is likely far greater, since they are required to report only a fraction of their spending to the FEC. Politically involved independent groups that publicly disclose their donors, including super PACs, have spent $174 million so far this election cycle.
"For this cycle, we know almost nothing," said Center for Responsive Politics communications director Viveca Novak, referring to those behind the spending of non-disclosing groups.
Crossroads GPS is the biggest spender, with $85.9 million in spending in announced advertising since the beginning of 2011, according to its press releases.
About three-quarters of that money -- $65.2 million -- is reported to have gone solely into ad campaigns targeting President Obama in swing states or on national cable. Another $11.5 million has specifically targeted Democratic Senate candidates facing tough elections. Crossroads GPS reported one $7 million campaign that was split between attacks on Obama and five Senate candidates.
Other groups that do not have to disclose their donors have also peppered swing states with TV ads. Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance, both linked to the billionaire business titans Charles and David Koch, have waged multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The conservative American Future Fund has also dumped millions into attacking President Obama.
Non-disclosing groups on both sides of the aisle -- including the conservative American Action Network, American Commitment and Chamber of Commerce and the liberal Patriot Majority USA, Citizens for Strength & Security, League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood -- have taken aim at Senate and House races.
More than 90 percent of the $172 million reportedly spent came from conservative groups.
cont.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/dark-money-2012-election_n_1708127.html
Despite the fact that the ad's central message was the failure of the president, it wasn't considered a campaign ad under election laws. Although the group spends tens of millions of dollars on ads targeting Democratic candidates, Crossroads GPS is organized as a "social welfare nonprofit" under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code and therefore not subject to the rules governing political organizations.
Whereas super PACs are required to register with the Federal Election Commission and disclose their donors -- people like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has given millions of dollars to conservative groups so far this election cycle -- nonprofits like Crossroads GPS and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their donors secret. As a result, there is a great flood of campaign spending this election cycle for which there is no official paper trail.
"Clearly there's a market for people who want to influence elections without identifying themselves," said University of California-Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen. "For every Sheldon Adelson, who wants to show how important he is, there are many people who want to keep their identity secret."
Through July 26, politically involved groups that do not disclose their donors have spent at least $172 million on campaigns that include television, radio and Internet advertising, according to a Huffington Post review of FEC reports, advertising buys, press releases and news stories. Total spending by these groups is likely far greater, since they are required to report only a fraction of their spending to the FEC. Politically involved independent groups that publicly disclose their donors, including super PACs, have spent $174 million so far this election cycle.
"For this cycle, we know almost nothing," said Center for Responsive Politics communications director Viveca Novak, referring to those behind the spending of non-disclosing groups.
Crossroads GPS is the biggest spender, with $85.9 million in spending in announced advertising since the beginning of 2011, according to its press releases.
About three-quarters of that money -- $65.2 million -- is reported to have gone solely into ad campaigns targeting President Obama in swing states or on national cable. Another $11.5 million has specifically targeted Democratic Senate candidates facing tough elections. Crossroads GPS reported one $7 million campaign that was split between attacks on Obama and five Senate candidates.
Other groups that do not have to disclose their donors have also peppered swing states with TV ads. Americans for Prosperity and the American Energy Alliance, both linked to the billionaire business titans Charles and David Koch, have waged multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. The conservative American Future Fund has also dumped millions into attacking President Obama.
Non-disclosing groups on both sides of the aisle -- including the conservative American Action Network, American Commitment and Chamber of Commerce and the liberal Patriot Majority USA, Citizens for Strength & Security, League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood -- have taken aim at Senate and House races.
More than 90 percent of the $172 million reportedly spent came from conservative groups.
cont.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/dark-money-2012-election_n_1708127.html
The one thing I wanted to see in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, I never did, as we only changed trains there.
The guide book said in the museum was an amok catcher.
Sounds like we need a lot of them, here and now.
The guide book said in the museum was an amok catcher.
Sounds like we need a lot of them, here and now.
Agreed....
Everyone just wants to get re-elected and that precludes serious consideration of our more "long term" future.
If we don't make a serious investment in our infrastructure, education and R&D we will not be able to compete globally. We need leaders with vision and courage and imagination.
Mike
If we don't make a serious investment in our infrastructure, education and R&D we will not be able to compete globally. We need leaders with vision and courage and imagination.
Mike
The dynamics of the "spending" is a slap in the face. I tried to work the whole silly circle out in my head so I'll spill it before my head blows up. The redundancy is caustic...
Infrastructure is crumbling, but the government is making cuts to some programs that would allow regular maintenance of said infrastructure. The government spends billions on TARP, trying to save the auto industry and the banking industry (oddly enough were the majority of money is). We then give millions upon millions to "start up" businesses within the "Green Energy" realm... bad business plans and all..... Then, then, then the richest individuals in the country take sides. When doing that, they try to bring their friends on board. Money is abundant and either side is capable of gathering hundreds of millions of dollars. They get some of the middle class involved because of partisan politics to donate to "the cause"...... (Super Pacs) then they do their best to spend all of that money to defame the opposition in order for that opposition to NOT GET ELECTED.....
Government spending has run amok, Super Pacs spending has run amok, and we the people are worse off now??? Great business model, people. No wonder things are in the shape their in today.
Infrastructure is crumbling, but the government is making cuts to some programs that would allow regular maintenance of said infrastructure. The government spends billions on TARP, trying to save the auto industry and the banking industry (oddly enough were the majority of money is). We then give millions upon millions to "start up" businesses within the "Green Energy" realm... bad business plans and all..... Then, then, then the richest individuals in the country take sides. When doing that, they try to bring their friends on board. Money is abundant and either side is capable of gathering hundreds of millions of dollars. They get some of the middle class involved because of partisan politics to donate to "the cause"...... (Super Pacs) then they do their best to spend all of that money to defame the opposition in order for that opposition to NOT GET ELECTED.....
Government spending has run amok, Super Pacs spending has run amok, and we the people are worse off now??? Great business model, people. No wonder things are in the shape their in today.
Yes, I agree~ both sides are spending tons of money while jobs disappear and infrastructures crumble.
Perhaps we need a national ballot initiative to
force limiting campaign funding ?
This is not only nuts, it's a slap in the face to all of us.
Perhaps we need a national ballot initiative to
force limiting campaign funding ?
This is not only nuts, it's a slap in the face to all of us.
If one will look back to the last presidential election, you can see a lot of money being spent on the liberal side of the spectrum. They are still doing a fine job today.
This is the pendulum effect. Last election cycle, we went from a miserable conservative effort to a liberal effort, now it looks like we are swinging back to a "conservative" effort.... The 2 parties keep taking turns, going back and forth, back and forth, either in office or with spending or both.
This is the pendulum effect. Last election cycle, we went from a miserable conservative effort to a liberal effort, now it looks like we are swinging back to a "conservative" effort.... The 2 parties keep taking turns, going back and forth, back and forth, either in office or with spending or both.
Orphan... not trying to hijack your post, as I COMPLETELY agree with it, but check out what I posted below. It's being done by BOTH of them, and this is just June's reported numbers.
Makes me AS SICK as it does you, that the economy is in the freaking TOILET, and they're spending hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars, trying to slight, slam, disparage each other.
Sickening...
********
Obama Campaign Spending Furiously As Romney Takes Control of Money Race
The Obama campaign committee spent a tremendous amount of money in June, at a rate of nearly $2 million per day, according to federal elections filings submitted over the weekend. The president's committee outraised Mitt Romney's, but spent $58 million—more than it brought in and twice as much as Romney's campaign spent.
Though the Obama campaign raised $45 million to the Romney campaign's $33 million, his fundraising team raised significantly less than Romney's when outside groups are taken into account. Together with the Republican National Committee, Romney's side raised $106 million in June, whereas Obama raised $71 million.
When the candidates' Super PACs are included, Romney's money advantage widens. Altogether, Romney's side (the campaign, RNC, and his Super PAC, Restore Our Future) raised $126.7 million in June and has $101.8 million on hand. Obama's side (the campaign, DNC, and his Super PAC, Priorities USA) raised $88.1 million in June and has $109.2 million on hand, even with the aggressive spending spree of the last month.
In addition, pro-Romney groups raised significantly more and have more cash on hand than pro-Obama ones.
Obama's reliance on small donations abated slightly in June, while Romney's increased, due to the $5.5 million raised off of the Supreme Court's healthcare ruling, according to the campaign. Still, less than one-fifth of Romney's donations were $200 or less, while those small donations constituted half of Obama's haul.
The president's fundraising isn't all small donations. His campaign released an updated list of bundlers—people who raise large sums on his behalf—last week. These 638 people raised at least $36 million for Obama's campaign since April, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These bundlers aren't always ordinary citizens: Newark Mayor Cory Booker raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the campaign over that time period, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley raised more than $500,000.
The Obama campaign releases its bundlers information voluntarily, as did former President George W. Bush and Ariz. Sen. John McCain during his 2008 candidacy. Romney has repeatedly refused to release information on its bundlers beyond the tiny fraction required by law.
SOURCE: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/07/23/obama-campaign-spending-furiously-as-romney-takes-control-of-money-race-
Makes me AS SICK as it does you, that the economy is in the freaking TOILET, and they're spending hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars, trying to slight, slam, disparage each other.
Sickening...
********
Obama Campaign Spending Furiously As Romney Takes Control of Money Race
The Obama campaign committee spent a tremendous amount of money in June, at a rate of nearly $2 million per day, according to federal elections filings submitted over the weekend. The president's committee outraised Mitt Romney's, but spent $58 million—more than it brought in and twice as much as Romney's campaign spent.
Though the Obama campaign raised $45 million to the Romney campaign's $33 million, his fundraising team raised significantly less than Romney's when outside groups are taken into account. Together with the Republican National Committee, Romney's side raised $106 million in June, whereas Obama raised $71 million.
When the candidates' Super PACs are included, Romney's money advantage widens. Altogether, Romney's side (the campaign, RNC, and his Super PAC, Restore Our Future) raised $126.7 million in June and has $101.8 million on hand. Obama's side (the campaign, DNC, and his Super PAC, Priorities USA) raised $88.1 million in June and has $109.2 million on hand, even with the aggressive spending spree of the last month.
In addition, pro-Romney groups raised significantly more and have more cash on hand than pro-Obama ones.
Obama's reliance on small donations abated slightly in June, while Romney's increased, due to the $5.5 million raised off of the Supreme Court's healthcare ruling, according to the campaign. Still, less than one-fifth of Romney's donations were $200 or less, while those small donations constituted half of Obama's haul.
The president's fundraising isn't all small donations. His campaign released an updated list of bundlers—people who raise large sums on his behalf—last week. These 638 people raised at least $36 million for Obama's campaign since April, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These bundlers aren't always ordinary citizens: Newark Mayor Cory Booker raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the campaign over that time period, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley raised more than $500,000.
The Obama campaign releases its bundlers information voluntarily, as did former President George W. Bush and Ariz. Sen. John McCain during his 2008 candidacy. Romney has repeatedly refused to release information on its bundlers beyond the tiny fraction required by law.
SOURCE: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/07/23/obama-campaign-spending-furiously-as-romney-takes-control-of-money-race-
What bothers me is the figure ~ $172 million on ads?
With our infrastructure failing, unemployment rising, it seems down right obscene that all this money is being spent in this way.
Think of all the good these funds could do for our country by putting that money towards a useful purpose other than getting another politician into office.
Despicable !
With our infrastructure failing, unemployment rising, it seems down right obscene that all this money is being spent in this way.
Think of all the good these funds could do for our country by putting that money towards a useful purpose other than getting another politician into office.
Despicable !
HE FLOODGATES OPEN
The amount of undisclosed-donor money spent in federal elections jumped from 1 percent in the 2006 election to 25 percent in the 2008 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, after the Supreme Court lifted some restrictions on spending by nonprofit corporations. Spending by non-disclosing groups then skyrocketed to 44 percent of all reported spending in the 2010 election, after the court's January 2010 Citizens United decision lifted bans on independent electoral expenditures by corporations, including nonprofits, and unions. This occurred despite the Citizens United ruling's strong support for transparency in campaign money.
The Internal Revenue Service's refusal, so far, to question Crossroads GPS' status as a tax-exempt social welfare nonprofit was another spark that lit the fire of undisclosed spending, according to Hasen.
"Once [Karl Rove] set up his affiliated Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) group, he saw a big uptick in his contributions," Hasen said. Rove founded the group in 2010. "When they succeeded without any legal repercussions, the floodgates flew wide open for anonymous contributions."
A joint study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics concluded that non-disclosing groups outspent disclosing groups, like super PACs, by a 3-2 margin in the 2010 election.
Few details have emerged about the sources of the $172 million the non-disclosing groups have pumped into the 2012 election.
"It's sort of like finding a needle in a haystack," said Novak. "There is no systematic way to figure out who gave, especially corporations and individuals."
Politico reported that casino mogul Steve Wynn, who once claimed to have voted for Obama in 2008, has given millions to Crossroads GPS and even flew Rove and his new wife, Karen Johnson, in a private jet for a vacation in Italy. The Huffington Post revealed that Adelson, the biggest casino operator and top donor to super PACs, will contribute money to the efforts of the Koch brothers, who founded and fund Americans for Prosperity.
Major corporations have also been among the secret donors to social welfare groups and trade associations in this election cycle, as well as past ones. Health insurer Aetna accidentally disclosed in a year-end regulatory filing with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that, in 2010, it had given $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce and $3.5 million to the American Action Network.
Hasen thinks that Aetna's disclosure hints at a broader pattern of hidden corporate giving. "It's hard for me to believe that Aetna is an outlier on this," he said.
A Huffington Post review of IRS records and voluntary disclosures found that corporations contributed millions of dollars in 2010 and 2011 to groups running political attack ads.
Companies including AFLAC, Chevron, Dow Chemical, eBay, Intel, MetLife, Microsoft, Prudential, Southern, Target, U.S. Bancorp, WellPoint and Xcel Energy reported giving a combined $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce. Much of it was earmarked for non-tax-exempt activities, including lobbying and advertising.
According to the IRS records covering 2010, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the chief lobbying organization for the prescription drug industry, contributed to a number of groups, including $4.5 million to the conservative American Action Network, $3.375 million to the liberal Citizens for Strength & Security and $2 million to the liberal America's Families First.
Piecing together information from companies' voluntary reports and annual IRS forms, however, produces only a partial picture of the secret money being spent on the 2012 election. Most documents that would include any information for 2011 won't be publicly available until after this year's election, and reports for 2012 won't be public until 2013.
PUSHING TO REVEAL
To counter the surge of undisclosed-donor money, Democrats in Congress have pushed legislation that would require the disclosure of donors to any group that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related expenses, including television ads. The legislation, known as the Disclose Act, failed to clear a Republican filibuster in the Senate by one vote in 2010 and faced another two successful Republican filibusters in July 2012.
"It's a very troubling pattern that more money is going underground and being funneled through organizations that keep the sources of funding secret," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the champion of the Disclose Act in the House of Representatives.
Van Hollen won a federal court decision in March directing the FEC to rewrite its rules to require groups spending money on "electioneering communications" to disclose all donors. (An electioneering communication is an ad that mentions a candidate within the period immediately prior to an election, but does not call for her victory or defeat.)
The decision is forcing politically involved "social welfare" nonprofits to shift their strategies in order to keep their donors' names hidden.
Since the new rules governing electioneering communications (which are retroactive to March 30) apply only to ads that run within 30 days of a primary or a party convention and within 60 days of a general election, Crossroads GPS has been pumping up its spending on ads that fall outside that window.
In 2010, when the Chamber of Commerce led all independent groups in spending $36 million on the election, all of its ads were classified as electioneering communications. Now the trade group is shifting to "independent expenditures" -- direct appeals to elect or defeat candidates -- which are not covered by the court decision. In the final two weeks of July, the Chamber announced a $7 million advertising buy to help 11 Republican Senate candidates in tough races, part of its pledge to spend more than $50 million in 2012.
"There are organizations that are going to try and twist themselves into pretzels to try and avoid telling the public who is funding their campaign ads," Van Hollen said.
The amount of undisclosed-donor money spent in federal elections jumped from 1 percent in the 2006 election to 25 percent in the 2008 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, after the Supreme Court lifted some restrictions on spending by nonprofit corporations. Spending by non-disclosing groups then skyrocketed to 44 percent of all reported spending in the 2010 election, after the court's January 2010 Citizens United decision lifted bans on independent electoral expenditures by corporations, including nonprofits, and unions. This occurred despite the Citizens United ruling's strong support for transparency in campaign money.
The Internal Revenue Service's refusal, so far, to question Crossroads GPS' status as a tax-exempt social welfare nonprofit was another spark that lit the fire of undisclosed spending, according to Hasen.
"Once [Karl Rove] set up his affiliated Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) group, he saw a big uptick in his contributions," Hasen said. Rove founded the group in 2010. "When they succeeded without any legal repercussions, the floodgates flew wide open for anonymous contributions."
A joint study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics concluded that non-disclosing groups outspent disclosing groups, like super PACs, by a 3-2 margin in the 2010 election.
Few details have emerged about the sources of the $172 million the non-disclosing groups have pumped into the 2012 election.
"It's sort of like finding a needle in a haystack," said Novak. "There is no systematic way to figure out who gave, especially corporations and individuals."
Politico reported that casino mogul Steve Wynn, who once claimed to have voted for Obama in 2008, has given millions to Crossroads GPS and even flew Rove and his new wife, Karen Johnson, in a private jet for a vacation in Italy. The Huffington Post revealed that Adelson, the biggest casino operator and top donor to super PACs, will contribute money to the efforts of the Koch brothers, who founded and fund Americans for Prosperity.
Major corporations have also been among the secret donors to social welfare groups and trade associations in this election cycle, as well as past ones. Health insurer Aetna accidentally disclosed in a year-end regulatory filing with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that, in 2010, it had given $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce and $3.5 million to the American Action Network.
Hasen thinks that Aetna's disclosure hints at a broader pattern of hidden corporate giving. "It's hard for me to believe that Aetna is an outlier on this," he said.
A Huffington Post review of IRS records and voluntary disclosures found that corporations contributed millions of dollars in 2010 and 2011 to groups running political attack ads.
Companies including AFLAC, Chevron, Dow Chemical, eBay, Intel, MetLife, Microsoft, Prudential, Southern, Target, U.S. Bancorp, WellPoint and Xcel Energy reported giving a combined $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce. Much of it was earmarked for non-tax-exempt activities, including lobbying and advertising.
According to the IRS records covering 2010, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the chief lobbying organization for the prescription drug industry, contributed to a number of groups, including $4.5 million to the conservative American Action Network, $3.375 million to the liberal Citizens for Strength & Security and $2 million to the liberal America's Families First.
Piecing together information from companies' voluntary reports and annual IRS forms, however, produces only a partial picture of the secret money being spent on the 2012 election. Most documents that would include any information for 2011 won't be publicly available until after this year's election, and reports for 2012 won't be public until 2013.
PUSHING TO REVEAL
To counter the surge of undisclosed-donor money, Democrats in Congress have pushed legislation that would require the disclosure of donors to any group that spends $10,000 or more on campaign-related expenses, including television ads. The legislation, known as the Disclose Act, failed to clear a Republican filibuster in the Senate by one vote in 2010 and faced another two successful Republican filibusters in July 2012.
"It's a very troubling pattern that more money is going underground and being funneled through organizations that keep the sources of funding secret," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the champion of the Disclose Act in the House of Representatives.
Van Hollen won a federal court decision in March directing the FEC to rewrite its rules to require groups spending money on "electioneering communications" to disclose all donors. (An electioneering communication is an ad that mentions a candidate within the period immediately prior to an election, but does not call for her victory or defeat.)
The decision is forcing politically involved "social welfare" nonprofits to shift their strategies in order to keep their donors' names hidden.
Since the new rules governing electioneering communications (which are retroactive to March 30) apply only to ads that run within 30 days of a primary or a party convention and within 60 days of a general election, Crossroads GPS has been pumping up its spending on ads that fall outside that window.
In 2010, when the Chamber of Commerce led all independent groups in spending $36 million on the election, all of its ads were classified as electioneering communications. Now the trade group is shifting to "independent expenditures" -- direct appeals to elect or defeat candidates -- which are not covered by the court decision. In the final two weeks of July, the Chamber announced a $7 million advertising buy to help 11 Republican Senate candidates in tough races, part of its pledge to spend more than $50 million in 2012.
"There are organizations that are going to try and twist themselves into pretzels to try and avoid telling the public who is funding their campaign ads," Van Hollen said.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
