Super PACs' Super Influence and Their Destruction of Our Political System

As we enter the homestretch to Tuesday’s Michigan primary, there is another, arguably more important duel taking place beyond the battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum: the war between their super PACs.

Restore Our Future, the Romney-backing super PAC, has bought over $800,000 of television time in Michigan, covering local broadcasts with accusations of Santorum’s past as a Washington insider.  And while Romney has a massive fundraising advantage over Santorum, a super PAC backing Santorum, the Red, White and Blue Fund, has evened the playing field by buying almost $700,000 worth of television ads in Michigan.

This marks just the latest influx of massive super PAC spending throughout the Republican presidential primary, which has become the most dominant force in the Republican race.

Super PACs, which came from the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling last year, can legally raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions and trade associations.  They are permitted to spend that money on messages supporting the election or defeat of federal candidates. They cannot directly donate the money they raise to candidates and are not allowed to work directly with the candidate’s campaign.

Super PACs are responsible for a new flood of secret and unlimited cash infiltrating our political system.  They have become far more important and influential than the candidates themselves or the voters, and have fundamentally changed American politics.

To date, there are 328 super PACs that have raised about $99 million and spent about $48 million in the 2012 election cycle, $42.5 million of which has been spent on the presidential race.  This amount of money is almost double the amount of money that came from outside spending at this point in 2008, when $23.1 million had been spent, $12.9 million of which came from super PACs.

More specifically, 12 candidate-specific super PACs have spent more than $22 million on ads and other expenditures so far during the Republican presidential primary.

The influence that super PACs have had thus far cannot be underemphasized.  The pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, spent $4.5 million last fall attacking Gingrich once he rose in the polls.  The PAC helped Romney fend off a last-minute surge by Gingrich in Iowa.

Restore Our Future has gone on to spend a total of about $8 million on advertisements and other expenditures to help Romney's electoral prospects, which played a significant role in Romney’s decisive victory in Florida.  Although this is far more money than any other super PAC involved in the 2012 primary has spent, Gingrich and Santorum’s campaigns have been carried by super PACs as well.

Since Gingrich’s steep drop in Iowa, pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future has spent $4.2 million, much of which has been used to paint Romney as a “predatory corporate raider.”

Rick Santorum’s campaign had raised the least out of the current Republican candidates through 2011, just under $2.2 million, giving Romney a 28-1 fundraising advantage.  But the pro-Santorum super PAC, Red, White and Blue Fund, spent over $240,000 in the days leading up to the February 7th primaries in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, helping Santorum sweep all three races.

What is even more concerning than how much money the super PACs are spending is that most of that funding has come from a very small number of individuals and organizations.  This makes small contributions from large numbers of Americans largely irrelevant, and multiplies the influence that the wealthiest Americans have over our political system.

Indeed, super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years, and about half has come from fewer than 200 wealthy people.  Further, 93% of the contributions raised by super PACs were $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more.

Not surprisingly, the American people are very unhappy with the super PACs and their influence on our political system.  According to a survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 62% of voters oppose the Court’s Citizens United ruling.  And over three-quarters say they would like candidates to make campaign finance reform a “key” issue in 2012.

The GQRR also poll found the majority of voters across the aisle – Republicans, Democrats and independents – all agree with the following statement: “Given what I see in the presidential race, I am fed up with big donors and secret money that controls which candidate we hear about. It undermines democracy.”

And the latest New York Times/CBS poll found similar voter sentiment regarding outside spending. The poll found that two-thirds of respondents favor limiting ad spending by outside groups.

The detrimental impact and corruption of super PACs on the American political system cannot be understated.  Candidates no longer need to persuade future constituents to donate to their campaign because they believe in that candidate's leadership.  Instead, candidates focus on convincing a few extremely rich Americans that their interests will be attended to if the candidate wins.  Make no mistake – expectations of advantageous policy positions come along with multi-figure checks.

It is a shame that such a small number of our political leaders are willing to take a stand against such deceptive fundraising practices.  Such methods directly diminish the resiliency of our country’s political system.

Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen

View the original article here

The Caucus: Pro-Romney 'Super PAC' Spent $14 Million in January

A “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney blew through $14 million on a three-state advertising binge against his Republican rivals in January, according to campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

But the super PAC, Restore Our Future, also raised close to $7 million during the same month, and began February with more than $16 million in the bank, money that has helped pound Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum and may help restore momentum for Mr. Romney as the “Super Tuesday” round of Republican contests next month approaches.

Still, the heavy spending by Restore Our Future highlighted the difficult political terrain for Mr. Romney in January, when he lost the South Carolina primary to Newt Gingrich before pulling off a victory in Florida later in the month, helped in part by multimillion-dollar ad campaigns by the Romney campaign and the Super PAC.

While Restore Our Future took in donations as small as $5, close to $5 million raised by the super PAC came from just 25 individuals and corporations, each giving between $100,000 and $500,000.

Three individuals gave half a million dollars apiece: Joseph W. Craft, an Oklahoma mining executive; Bruce Kovner, a billionaire hedge fund founder from New York; and David Lisonbee, the founder of a Utah vitamin supplements company.

The group also received further donations from some past donors: Harold C. Simmons, a Texas billionaire who has already donated millions of dollars to Republican super PACs; members of the Marriott and Walton families, founders of the Marriott hotel and Wal-Mart chains, respectively; and Julian Robertson, a retired hedge fund manager.

Restore Our Future also received money from several corporations, some not easily connected to a specific executive or even business. Select Management Resources, a Georgia-based limited liability corporation, gave $100,000; the company appears to have registered to lobby on banking and credit card issues in Nebraska.

Another donor is RTTTA, LLC of Provo, Utah, where state records list the company’s registered agent as J. Todd Rawle, a Romney donor and an executive at a company that makes check-cashing and pay-day loan software

JTC Holdings, a California limited liability company registered by Justin Chang, a real estate executive at Los Angeles-based Colony Capital, gave two contributions totaling $20,000. Mr. Chang previous donated to Restore Our Future and to Mr. Romney under his own name.

View the original article here

‘Super PAC’ Role Grows for Republican Campaigns

Mitt Romney’s campaign spent $19 million during January, almost three times as much as the $6.5 million he raised. He ultimately won two states, New Hampshire and Florida, ending the month with less than $8 million in cash on hand. Newt Gingrich raised nearly as much, $5.6 million, and spent close to $6 million. Rick Santorum, who enjoyed a surge of grass-roots donations after being declared the victor in Iowa, raised $4.5 million, as did Representative Ron Paul of Texas — amounts that still leave Mr. Romney in the lead but no longer in a class by himself when it comes to raising money.

The super PAC backing Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future, raised $6.6 million in January and spent close to $14 million, much of it on advertisements battering Mr. Gingrich in Iowa and Florida. A super PAC backing Mr. Gingrich raised much more that month — almost $11 million — and spent most of it on attack advertisements against Mr. Romney in South Carolina, where Mr. Gingrich ultimately won, and in Florida, where Mr. Romney prevailed.

The spending reports revealed the breadth and power of super PACs as the campaign hits a critical and perhaps decisive period, with outside groups poised to pick up a growing share of political spending during the costly primary battle that lies ahead.

Bolstered by Mr. Romney’s extraordinarily high burn rate, the campaigns spent about $5 million more during January than the super PACs supporting them. But over all, super PACs backing the four leading Republican contenders raised $22.1 million in January, slightly more than the candidates themselves, and ended the month with $19.4 million in cash on hand, about $5 million more than the candidates had.

Most of that money came in six- and seven-figure checks from just a few dozen individuals and corporations — the billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson, the mutual fund investor Foster S. Friess, and the Texas industrialist Harold C. Simmons, among others — who have exploited recent court rulings and regulatory shifts to exert unprecedented influence over their party’s choice of presidential nominee.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC backing Mr. Romney, entered February with $16.3 million in cash on hand, money that has already underwritten an early run of attack advertisements against Mr. Santorum, whose victories in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri this month have made him the chief target for Mr. Romney’s attacks.

Mr. Romney could be even more dependent on Restore Our Future money than he was last month: while he has raised far more than other Republican candidates, he has spent heavily without taking a clear lead in the race. Moreover, Mr. Romney is “maxing out” the donors to his campaign — taking the maximum $2,500 contribution allowed by federal law for the primary — faster than any of the leading candidates of either party during the last two races, according to analysis by The New York Times.

Through the end of December, Mr. Romney had raised $2,500 from more than 14,000 donors, representing about 44 percent of all of his contributors. About 5 percent of Mr. Paul’s donors, 14 percent of Mr. Gingrich’s donors, and 30 percent of Mr. Santorum’s donors had maxed out, meaning that the vast majority of their contributors can continue to give more money — in most cases significantly more — this year.

As his campaign prepares for a potentially long fight for the nomination, Mr. Romney has stepped up his fund-raising events in strongholds like Washington and New York and begun prospecting elsewhere for supporters. During a campaign visit to Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. Romney made time for an evening stop at the Great American Tower, where local donors said they would raise more than $600,000 for him.

“We are very pleased with the continued support we have received from Americans across the country who want to see real change in Washington,” Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s national finance chairman, said in a statement. “We have exceeded our fund-raising goals and are on track with spending plans. We are the only campaign who has the organization and resources to go the distance of a long primary process.”

Though other candidates appear to have more robust grassroots fund-raising networks than Mr. Romney, they also ended January with far less money in the bank. Mr. Gingrich had about $1.8 million — and nearly as much debt. Mr. Santorum ended January with less than $1.5 million on hand, though his campaign said he raised at least $3 million in grass-roots contributions after his triple victories this month. Mr. Paul had about $1.6 million.

Griff Palmer and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Two cheers for super PACs

As a result of several key judicial decisions, the 2010 election brought forth a new kind of political organization: the super PAC. In the 2012 election cycle, these oft-vilified political action committees (PACs) continue to make a name for themselves.

Attacks on super PACs have been fierce. At a 2010 campaign reception where tickets cost up to $2,400, President Obama called them “a threat to democracy.” A recent article in The Daily Beast refers to them as “shadowy organizations” that “wreak havoc on the presidential campaign.” Even Mitt Romney, who benefited from this "havoc" when super PACs ran ads against his opponents, says he wishes that they would "disappear."

But such criticism – from both sides of the aisle – is overblown. Super PACs may have their problems, but they are not the Constitution-eating monsters critics have made them out to be.

THE MONITOR'S VIEW: Eight reasons to ‘mute’ super PAC ads

What makes a super PAC so super?

A regular PAC may take contributions only up to $5,000 per individual, and none from unions or corporations. By contrast, a super PAC can accept unlimited sums from individuals, unions, and corporations. Unlike a regular PAC, it cannot give money directly to candidates. But it can make unlimited independent expenditures for ads and other campaign items, as long as it does not directly coordinate with the candidates that it is helping.

Under close analysis, some of the loudest, most frequent criticisms of super PACs don’t hold up.

Opponents say that super PACs enable corporate interests to buy undue influence over the federal government.

There are a couple of problems with such claims. Business corporations account for less than a quarter of contributions to these groups: most of the money comes from individuals. And whether the source consists of corporate treasuries or personal checking accounts, political scientists have not found strong and consistent evidence that contributions drive policy decisions. Rather, contributors tend to support officials for taking stands that they would have taken anyway.

In any case, one need not play the campaign finance game to wield influence. Arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington, AARP, has never given a cent to a campaign or a super PAC. It wields influence because it represents millions of people, which is the way a democracy is supposed to work.

Critics also warn that super PAC money buys elections.

Some attribute the 2010 GOP takeover of the House to the ads that these groups ran in key districts. The flaw in this assertion is that most national polls showed Republicans pulling ahead in congressional voting preference before any super PACs had spent one cent.

In the current campaign, Newt Gingrich has blamed his own woes on a pro-Romney super PAC. As political scientist John Geer has pointed out, Mr. Gingrich crashed in Iowa not because of attack ads against him, but because his numbers were going down all over the country, including places that never saw the ads. Even in Florida, exit polls showed that voters wanted a candidate who could win in November. Attacks by super PACs did not render Gingrich unelectable in a national race – Gingrich has been doing to himself that for nearly 20 years.

OPINION: A look back: In spite of super PACs, this isn't the most negative campaign in history

In his Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer, the president said that he was worried about the negativity of so many Super PAC ads.

But negativity is neither new nor harmful. The 1800 contest between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson makes the Romney-Gingrich fight look like a stroll in the moonlight. Research shows that negative ads are actually more informative and better documented than positive ones.

Although super PACs spend much of their money on ads, they also engage in efforts to get voters to the polls. This year, they will be mobilizing people through phone banks, door-to-door contact, and social media. So they not only provide information, they encourage political participation. That’s not a threat to democracy.

So why only two cheers and not three?

Although super PACs report their contributors, certain loopholes prevent people from getting a full picture of their finances. Political groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code do not have to disclose their donors, and yet they may spend substantial resources on campaign activities, including contributions and payments to super PACs.

Accordingly, it’s sometimes impossible to follow the money all the way to its source. We know that the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action got $215,234 in late 2011 from a 501(c)(4) called Priorities USA, but we have no way of knowing where the latter group raised the money. Similarly, the conservative Freedomworks for America super PAC, received a large share of its funds from the Freedomworks 501(c)(4).

And although super PACs are technically forbidden to coordinate with candidates, there are ways around this prohibition. Candidates may give directions to super PACs if they do it in public. A spokesperson for a pro-Gingrich super PAC has said: “We take out marching orders through the media for Newt Gingrich.” One could say much the same of “The Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.” 

Loopholes and subterfuge are definitely not good for voter confidence in democratic processes.

Congress should revise campaign finance law to provide greater transparency for campaign spending by 501(c)(4) groups. It could also raise the limit on direct contributions to campaigns and provide a tax credit for small donations. Such a system would encourage more people to participate and channel a grater share of campaign money – in a fully transparent fashion – to candidate committees, which would have direct control and accountability.

OPINION: 5 standards for presidential leadership

The White House might not be joining in the two cheers for super PACs, but it will probably ease up on the criticism. Despite the misgivings he expressed in his Super Bowl interview, the president reversed course and climbed aboard the super PAC bandwagon. The very next day, his campaign committee announced that it would encourage contributions to Priorities USA Action.

John J. Pitney, Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College and coauthor of “American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy, and Citizenship.”

ALSO BY THIS WRITER: The most important election of a lifetime? So say Gingrich et al. 

Sign up for our weekly Opinion and Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Commentary to your daily Monitor newsletter.

View the original article here

Montana's challenge to 'super PACs'

More than a century ago, a Montana industrialist named W.A. Clark used his wealth to buy a seat in the US Senate. Mark Twain wrote that Clark’s well-monied politicking had so sweetened corruption in Montana that “it no longer has an offensive smell.”

The state’s voters did rise up, however, at the power of money. They passed the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. Ever since, the law has prohibited corporate spending on state political campaigns.

RELATED: Eight reasons to ‘mute’ super PAC ads

Now the law is under challenge in the US Supreme Court – the same court that decided in its 2010 Citizens United ruling that corporations have free-speech rights in unlimited spending on campaigns because there is no compelling case that they will demand something in return from politicians. The ruling has spawned a new kind of political-action committee, the “super PACs” now dominating the 2012 election campaigns.

The high court is reviewing a decision in December by the Montana Supreme Court that found the state still has a continuing and compelling interest to justify speech restrictions on corporations under the 1912 law.

Montana, being a state with a sparse population that is highly dependent on big farms and expensive mining, is “especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government,” the state court wrote.

It cited many historical and recent examples of well-financed corruption as well as the fact that corporations have “a substantial presence and are active participants in Montana politics. The many lobbyists and political committees who participate in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness.”

In addition, the court found a negative influence on voter enthusiasm from the outsized effects of corporate money. Even Clark himself admitted in 1900 that “[m]any people have become so indifferent to voting” in Montana as a result of the “large sums of money that have been expended in the state....”

The Montana court isn’t challenging the US Supreme Court directly on its reasoning in the Citizens ruling. Instead, it points to the ruling’s demand for a compelling interest – evidence – to curb corporate speech. In Montana, if not elsewhere, the evidence is clear.

OPINION: Two cheers for super PACs

If the US justices take the Montana case, they have a chance to refine their 2010 ruling and acknowledge that many states have a compelling case to curb big-money influence. Too many elected leaders allow big donors to influence official decisions.

The corrosive effects of big money on democracy are the legal equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater – a reason to impinge on free-speech rights under certain circumstances. The high court must find a better balance between its protection of free speech for corporations and the rights of a democracy to protect itself from large campaign donors who expect favors.

Sign up for our weekly Opinion and Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Commentary to your daily Monitor newsletter.

View the original article here

Who’s Financing the ‘Super PACs’

Mitt Romney Created by former aides to Mitt Romney, this super PAC is running advertisements in Florida, Nevada and Arizona to oppose Newt Gingrich.Investor and former top executive at Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney helped start.Co-chief executive at Renaissance Technologies Corp., a hedge fund company.Founder of the hedge fund Paulson & Company. Well known for earning billions of dollars betting against the subprime mortgage market.Houston homebuilder who was a major financier of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.Founder of Tiger Management, a hedge fund.Manager of Elliot Associates hedge fund.Shares a Provo, Utah, address with F8 LLC.Shares a Provo, Utah, address with Eli Publishing Inc.An Idaho-based health and wellness products company; donations were made under the names of four associated companies.Private investment firm based in Tulsa, Okla. Its chief executive is Francis Rooney, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.Founder and chief executive of Shumway Capital Invetments and protégé of Julian Robertson.An oil and gas company based in West Palm Beach, Fla. It was founded by Bill Koch, the brother of David H. and Charles Koch, wealthy conservative businessmen who have opposed President Obama through the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity.Founder of Moore Capital. Topped a British list of the richest hedge fund managers in 2010.Chairman of New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc.Managing director at Bain Capital. Married to Sandra Edgerley.Worked at Bain & Company, a consulting company founded by Bill Bain, for 10 years. Married to Paul Edgerley.Chairman of MBF Healthcare Partners, a private equity firm.Chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International.Chairman of Host Hotels & Resorts. In 2010, Mr. Marriott and his wife gave Mr. Romney more than $200,000 through the state-based affiliates of Mr. Romney's federal PAC, Free and Strong America.Co-managing partner and co-chief executive officer of Avista Capital Partners, a private equity firm.The news media in Florida reported that this investment group gave $250,000 to Rick Scott in 2010 for his gubernatorial campaign.Joined Bain Capital in 1989. Has been a managing director since 1997.Joined Bain Capital in 1993. Currently a managing director.Chairman of Fireman Capital Partners, a private equity firm.Founder of the Geier Group, a marketing and communications consulting firm. Chairman and chief executive officer of Interpublic, a global advertising and marketing services company, from 1977 to 2000.Founder and leader of Oxbow Group, a private energy company. He is a brother of Charles G. and David H. Koch, the secretive billionaire businessmen who have contributed significant sums to conservative causes. Over a decade ago, he accused Charles and David of cheating him in a business deal and sued them for $2 billion.Owner of The Villages retirement community and corporation.New England businessman and chief executive of Mugar Enterprises.President of The Pence Group Inc., a real estate development company based in McLean, Va.A managing director of Bain Capital since 2001 and a member of the firm since 1997.Located in Redwood City, Calif.
A software company. Its chief executive is Robert A. Maginn Jr., the chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, the finance co-chairman of Mr. Romney’s last presidential campaign and a former senior partner and director at Bain & Company.The Villages of Lake Sumter Inc.Retirement community in Florida.Chairman and chief executive of IntercontinentalExchange, a financial firm.Partner at TPG Capital, a private equity firm.Connecticut billionaire who is chairman and chief executive of Tudor Investment Corporation.A Michigan firm that provides services to the real estate industry, including foreclosure services.Senior advisor at TPA Private Equity.Dallas-based real estate investor.Automobile dealer with more than 30 dealershipsPennsylvania-based energy company.A real estate investment firm headed by the Trammell Crow family of Dallas.Managing director at Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mitt Romney helped start.President of Blue Ridge CapitalCo-chief executive of Sun Capital Advisers.Co-chief executive of Sun Capital Advisers.
Portfolio manager at Maverick Capital.Chief executive at Waters Corporation.Managing director, West Rim Capital/Sorenson Capital.Vice president and director at The Interface Group.Investment manager at Tudor Investment Corporation. President of Flaum Management Company.Chairman and chief executive of W/F Investment Corporation.Founder and chief executive of Citadel LLC.Executive at Northwest Excavating.President of Autocam Corporation.Senior adviser at TA Associates, a private equity firm.Senior managing director at the Blackstone Group.Partner at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.Executive at Willis Group Holdings.Chief executive of CKE Restaurants.Chief executive of Putman Investments.Chief executive of Vornado Realty Trust.Managing partner at August Columbia Capital.Partner at Smith-Christensen Enterprises.Chief operating officer of investment banking at Credit Suisse.Chairman and chief executive of Arvest Bank Group and son of Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart.Managing director at Parkman Whaling.New York hedge fund founded by John A. Griffin.Los Angeles-based real estate company.A travel company that had the exclusive right to sell Vancouver Olympic tickets.Larry H. Miller Group of CompaniesLocated in Sandy, Utah.Salt Lake City entity; President is Jonathan W. Bullen, a real estate investor who is also owner and president of Provo College, Eagle Gate College, and Evolution Fitness. Mr. Bullen, who is a Mormon like Mr. Romney, was a national finance co-chairman for his campaign back in 2008.The Rod and Leslie Aycox Foundation Inc.Alpharetta, Ga.Investment banker at Goldman Sachs.Investment banker at Goldman Sachs.Chief executive of Harbour Group.Chief executive of the Heavener Group.Investment professional at Apollo Management.Investment manager at TA Associates.Executive at Acosta Sales and Marketing.Venture capitalist at Andreessen Horowitz; co-founder of Netscape.Real estate investor at Black Equities.Partner at Monitor Clipper Partners.Chairman of Chaparal Investments.A co-founder, co-chairman, and co-chief executive officer of Canyon Partners, an investment firm.Head of the Merchant Banking Division at Goldman Sachs.Chairman of the Gardener Company, a private commercial real-estate company.Businessman and part owner of the Atlanta Hawks basketball team.A partner with the law firm of Wallace & Graham.Chief executive officer of Western Group, a privately-held apartment owner/developer company.Chief executive officer of the Johnson Foundation.A co-founder, co-chairman, and co-chief executive officer of Canyon Partners, an investment firm.A managing director at Fort Ashford Holdings, a private equity firm.Founder and chairman of Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, a Los Angeles-based investment firm.Founder and chief investment manager of Knott Partners, a hedge fund firm.Chief executive of Townsquare Media, a local media and entertainment company.President and chief executive of Soave Enterprises.Founder of Stearns Lending Inc.An investment banker at Goldman Sachs.A co-founding partner of H.I.G. Capital, a private equity firm.Chairman and chief executive of the Tribune Company.A leading manufacturer of cabin interior products for commercial aircraft and business jets and distributor of aerospace fasteners and consumables.Linked to Blue Ridge Capital, hedge fund run by John Griffin. Both Blue Ridge and Mr. Griffin donated to the super-PAC as well. Salisbury, N.C. company linked to Bill Graham, a Salisbury lawyer who also made a personal contribution to the PAC.Linked to Mark S. Siegel, chairman of the board of Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc., an oil and natural gas drilling company; also founder and president of REMY Investors & Consultants, an investment firm.A Houston entity linked to Ralph Eads, vice chairman at Jeffries & Co., an investment bank, who has contributed to the Romney campaign and focuses on the energy sector. Consultant, The Parthenon Group.Management consultant, The Parthenon Group.Investment managing partner, TA Associates Management.Chairman and chief executive, Arch Street Management LLC.Suffolk Construction Company Inc.Boston construction company.Chief executive, Winthrop Realty Trust.Senior managing director, FTI Consulting.Anesthesia Associates of Southern Illinois LLCBased in Marion, Ill.Printing company based in Lafayette Hill, Pa.Chairman and chief executive, Codina Partners LLC.Real estate developer, SRC Development Group.Managing director at Sutter Hill Ventures.Venture capitalist at Trident Capital.An executive at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.Oral maxillofacial surgeon at Clear Choice Centers.Chairman and co-founder of Independent Capital Partners.Chairman of Manchester Financial GroupAsset manager at Axiom International Investor.Investment manager at GCP Capital Partners.Financial adviser at Merrill Lynch.Managing partner at Tailwind Capital.Chairman and chief executive of World Wide Technology.Investor at Tribull Investment.Former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs.Ballard Exploration Company Inc.Houston-based oil and natural gas company.Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLPPhiladelphia law firm.Neal Communities Land Development LLCFlorida real estate company.Spectrum Laboratory Products Inc.Chemical company.98% $30.2 million
No known
candidate
ties This super PAC was active in many Congressional races during the 2010 midterm elections and has Karl Rove as its senior adviser. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group that is affiliated with the super PAC and does not have to disclose its donors, has spent at least $20 million on ads criticizing President Obama. Dallas billionaire who was among the top donors to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.Houston homebuilder who was a major financier of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.Private holding company owned by Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionaire who has been among the top donors to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.Affiliated with Jerry Perenchio, the chief executive of Chartwell Partners.Chief executive of TRT Holdings Inc.Chairman emeritus of The Geier Group.A real estate investment firm headed by the Trammell Crow family of Dallas.Founder of the telecom company Excel Communications.Coal producer run by Joseph W. Craft III, a Tulsa businessman.Popcorn company based in Indianapolis.Chief executive of Citadel Investment Group.Stephens Investments Holdings LLCLittle Rock, Ark., entity owned by investor Warren A. Stephens.Founder of Cumberland ReourcesRepublican media services firm fouded by Michael Dubke.Chief executive of Silver Eagle Distributors.Media corporation based in St. Paul, Minn., started by Stanley E. Hubbard.One of the country's largest coal producers. Its chief executive is Kevin S. Crutchfield.Founder of Equity International.President and chairman of the John Templeton Foundation; former chairman of Let Freedom Ring, an independent conservative group that supported President Bush in 2004.Hedge fund manager, Third Point LLC.Owner, United Contractors Midwest.Chairman and chief executive, Clark Enterprises, Inc.Investor, Bluff Point Associates.Physician, Cumberland Cardiology.Interior design company run by Charlene Neal, wife of Florida homebuilder Patrick Neal.League of American Voters Inc.Conservative advocacy group directed by Bob Adams.Chairman and chief executive, Harte-Hanks Inc.Chairman, president and chief executive, Invamed Associates.99% $18.4 million
Rick Perry A super PAC that was supporting Gov. Rick Perry of Texas before he left the race, headed by Mike Toomey, Mr. Perry's former chief of staff.Private holding company owned by Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionaire who has been among the top donors to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.Founder and chief executive of the Ryan LLC accounting firm.Personal injury lawyer at Buzbee Law Firm.Billionaire entrepreneur who founded Affiliated Computer Services, an information technology firm.President of Midland Energy, a West Texas energy company. Filings with the Federal Election Commission from last November show that the campaign of Gov. Rick Perry owed Mr. Anwar $66,362.50 in travel debts, apparently for use of a private jet. The latest filings show the debt to be paid.Chief executive and chairman of the board of Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas-based energy company.Founder of the super PAC; lobbyist, former legislator and one-time chief of staff to Mr. Perry of Texas.Founder, chairman and chief executive of the Houston Texans football team.Houston homebuilder who was a major financier of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.Chairman of Western Refining Company, a Texas oil refiner and marketer. Mr. Foster spent almost $20,000 flying Gov. Perry to a trade meeting in Mexico, where the governor asked Mexican energy officials to consider more joint ventures with Texas oil companies.Livestock dealer operating as Capitol Land & Livestock, owned by Jim Schwertner. Mr Schwertner was appointed to the Texas A&M Board of Regents by Mr. Perry.Co-owner of Arctas Capital Group, an energy-sector investment firm.A container and packaging company based in Carrollton, Tex., and owned by Carl Allen and Carl Allen Jr.Oil magnate and high-profile donor to American Crossroads, the influential Republican super PAC.President and chief operating officer of Occidental Petroleum Corp.Owner of McLane Group and former owner of the Houston Astros baseball team.Retired businessman; founded a glass manufacturer.Provider of funeral, cremation and cemetery services.Co-founder and managing director of Parkman Whaling LLC, an energy-sector investment firm.Texas cattle-feed yard managed by Johnny E. Trotter.Part of the Friedkin Group, which invests primarily in the automotive industry. The group's chairman and chief executive is Dan Friedkin, whom Mr. Perry named as the chair of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.Oil and gas refining and marketing company. Its chief executive is Paul Eisman.Chairman of Sanderson Farms, a poultry company based in Mississippi.Analyst at Equinox Management Partners.Chairman and chief executive of Williams Brothers Construction Company, the largest highway contractor in Texas.A wine and beverage distributor. Mr. Perry named him a regent for the Texas State University System.Physician and president of Conservative Republicans of Texas.Dimmitt, Tex., real estate investment company.Partner attorney at Jackson Walker LLP.Texas feed yard owned by Monte Cluck.97% $5.5 million
No known
candidate
ties A Democratic-leaning super PAC founded by David Brock, the Democratic operative and activist. The group has a non-profit arm, American Bridge 21st Century Foundation.American Federation of State, County and Municipal EmployeesPublic services employees union.American Bridge 21st Century FoundationA 501(c)4 group connected with the super PAC that does not have to disclose its donors.Investor, Corona del Mar, Calif.Co-founder of eScription Inc. and member of a committee that advises the Department of Health and Human Services.Chairman of Progressive Insurance Company.President, Bonanza Oil Company.President Emerita of the Museum of Modern Art, New York.Chairman and chief executive of Patterson Planning & Services, Inc.Lawyer, Thornton & Naumes LLP.PAC of the labor union federation.Publisher and editor-in-chief of Tin House magazine and Tin House Books.Foudner of Innovative Interfaces Inc., a software company.Co-founder of the clothing company Esprit and former bundler for Hillary Clinton.American Federation of State County and Municipal EmployeesPublic services employees union.Consultant, former software engineer at Google.Service Employees International Union COPEPAC of the labor union.Vice President, C8 Medisensors.Retired; former partner of Goldman Sachs.Partner at Lauder Partners, LLC, a venture capital firm.Owner, Jordan Real Estate Investments, LLC.Owner, Adaptive Analytics, LLC.Investment manager, Merfin, LLC.Chairman and chief executive, Hugo Neu Corporation.Film director and producer; directed "Star Trek" and "Mission Impossible III."Producer; married to J.J. Abrams.Non-Profit Director, Bethesda, Md.American Association For Justice PACPAC of the trial lawyer association.Venture Capitalist, Miami Beach.Executive, Alliance Energy Corp.Retired, Shaker Heights, Ohio.Partner of Francisco Partners, a technology buyout fund.Corporate Vice President, C8 Medisensors.Chairman and chief executive, Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation.96% $3.7 million

View the original article here

The Caucus: 'Super PAC' Backing Romney Airs Ad Aimed at Santorum

Restore Our Future, the “super PAC” backing Mitt Romney, has begun an assault on Rick Santorum in the wake of several national polls showing the two men now virtually tied heading into the next contests at the end of the month.

In a new ad airing in Michigan and elsewhere, the group attacks Mr. Santorum for voting as a senator to raise the debt limit, increase spending, request earmarks and to let convicted felons vote. “Rick Santorum. Big Spender. Washington Insider,” the ad concludes.

On Monday, Restore Our Future, which is run by several of Mr. Romney’s former top aides, purchased an additional $460,000 in television time in Michigan as it prepared for the battle there with Mr. Santorum. 

In the last several months, the group has primarily aired negative ads that attack Mr. Romney’s rivals. The group spent millions of dollars in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida to criticize Newt Gingrich’s character and record.

Now, that firepower is being turned on Mr. Santorum, who has struggled to raise the kind of money that could defend against the combined resources of Mr. Romney and the super PAC. There is a super PAC backing Mr. Santorum, too, but it has not raised or spent as much money as Restore Our Future.

View the original article here

Why Obama’s flip-flop on super PACs won’t matter

President Obama’s flip-flop toward embrace of the "super PAC" formed to support his reelection campaign should come as no surprise.

Yes, Mr. Obama railed against the Supreme Court decision that allowed outside groups to support campaigns with unlimited donations, visibly offending some justices over the matter at his 2010 State of the Union address. More recently, he has called them a “threat to democracy.”  

But the super PAC that supports Obama’s reelection, Priorities USA Action, was getting clobbered. It raised just $4.4 million last year. The conservative American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by former George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove, raked in $51 million. The biggest super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, brought in more than $30 million.

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money

All told, experts predict the Republican super PACs will collect a half billion dollars for the 2012 election. And Team Obama wasn’t about to “unilaterally disarm,” as campaign manager Jim Messina put it in an e-mail late Monday to supporters.

“The campaign has made clear that they cannot engage in this campaign, they cannot compete effectively ... if they play by a different set of rules,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday.

Liberal bloggers largely support Obama’s decision, agreeing that he cannot go into electoral battle under the system he wants, but with the system he has. The most vocal critic has been former Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, co-author of the 2002 campaign-finance law aimed at limiting the role of money in politics.

"This is dancing with the devil. I know a lot of Democrats in D.C. don’t agree, and I understand the desire to do everything possible to win," Mr. Feingold said in a statement. "But this decision will push Democrats to become corporate-lite, and will send us head-on into a battle we know we will lose, because Republicans like Mitt Romney and his friends have and will spend more money."

But chances are, Obama’s flip-flop won’t hurt him with voters. In his first presidential campaign, he initially promised to operate within the public financing system, which would have limited how much he could spend.  By June of 2008, he had changed his mind. In an e-mail to supporters then, Obama declared his independence “from a broken system.” Republican Sen. John McCain, his eventual opponent in the general election, accused him of breaking a promise.

Voters hardly blinked. Obama went on to raise $750 million, and won the presidency. As best we can tell, there weren’t legions of voters who otherwise would have supported Obama but for his broken promise on public financing.

The real challenge for Obama may be finding enough liberal money-bags to open up their checkbooks and match the Republicans in their super PAC giving, or least come in with respectable numbers. The best-known big donor to Democratic causes is billionaire investor George Soros. There’s big money in liberal Hollywood. And there are Obama’s “bundlers,” major donors who solicit additional donations from their personal networks.   

On Monday night, Obama campaign officials had a conference call with major bundlers, explaining the change in policy and encouraging them to donate to the Obama super PAC. According to CNN, one bundler on the call “questioned the effectiveness of the new approach, explaining every large donor of means had already been approached for a donation by Priorities USA.”

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Romney aides to speak at super PAC events

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior campaign aides to Republican Mitt Romney will begin appearing at fundraising events for an independent political group supporting his White House run, officials said Friday. The decision comes days after President Barack Obama gave his campaign the OK to do the same.

Both moves blur the line between so-called "super" political action committees and their favored candidates. Federal rules prohibit coordination between the committees and the candidates, but that hasn't stopped Republican- and Democratic-leaning groups from blurring the line to raise money.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent more than $15 million on ads through Florida's primary late last month either supporting Romney or attacking his rivals. That was more money than Romney's own campaign spent on ads. Such super PAC ads targeting GOP rival Newt Gingrich were largely credited for cutting into support for the former House speaker before the Iowa caucuses.

Romney's campaign confirmed the arrangement for The Associated Press on Friday.

The campaign's decision to follow Obama's lead in allowing aides to speak at super PAC fundraising events was not surprising. Romney himself spoke at a Restore Our Future event in New York last July.

This week, Obama's campaign said top administration officials would speak at events by Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting his re-election bid.

Obama has voiced support for campaign-finance reform, going so far as to chide the Supreme Court for its 2010 decision opening the doors for corporate and union spending in elections.

But, in explaining his embrace of super PACs, campaign officials said the president wouldn't "unilaterally disarm" and allow each campaign to operate under a different set of rules. Election data show Democratic-leaning groups, including the Democratic National Committee, have more cash on hand than their Republican counterparts. But Obama's team is taking few chances, particularly as billionaires are poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to support the eventual GOP nominee and to go after Obama in the fall.

"Our country is at a crossroads and the stakes could not be higher," Romney campaign spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a statement. "President Obama and his allies will do whatever it takes, and spend whatever it takes, to hold on to power."

Gitcho added that Romney's campaign won't allow Obama to overtake it in fundraising.

The Romney campaign's decision was first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

___

Follow Jack Gillum on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jackgillum

View the original article here

The 'disturbing' rise of super PACs: By the numbers

A small number of super-wealthy Americans are pumping a lot of lightly regulated money into the political system. Here's how it breaks down

President Obama got some grief this week when he reversed course on super PACs, suddenly encouraging wealthy supporters to contribute to the political spending behemoths that can accept unlimited donations from individuals and organizations. (Read a quick primer on super PACs here.) Obama campaign manager Jim Messina explained the change of heart as a nod to reality, saying Democrats can't "unilaterally disarm" while cash pours into Republican coffers. How much cash? A lot, say Kenneth Vogel and Abby Phillip at Politico. A new report from two public-interest groups confirms fears "that the cash for big-ticket campaign spending like TV advertising is increasingly controlled by an elite class of super-rich patrons not afraid to plunk down a million bucks or more for favored candidates and causes." Here, a stats-based look at the "disturbing" super PACs:

299
Registered super PACs

SEE MORE: Will the culture war shape the 2012 race?

$181 million
Amount raised by all super PACs in the past two years

56
Percent of those donations that came from "fewer than 200 super-rich people"

93
Percent of individual super PAC donors who gave at least $10,000

SEE MORE: The Nevada caucuses: 5 key questions

$34 million
Amount donated by just 32 people last year

17
People who gave at least $1 million to super PACs last year

SEE MORE: Tuesday's 'stunning' Santorum sweep: 6 takeaways

15
$1 million-plus donations that went to Republican-aligned super PACs

$2 million
Amount DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg donated to Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Next up, Nevada: Can anyone overtake Romney?

$8.6 million 
Amount Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons and his company gave to American Crossroads and other GOP-aligned super PACs

$11 million
Amount casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family donated to Newt Gingrich's super PAC

SEE MORE: Nominating Mitt Malaprop

$175,000
Amount liberal financier George Soros donated to super PACs (though he made political contributions of more than $20 million in 2004)

$30.2 million
Amount raised by Mitt Romney–aligned Restore Our Future PAC last year

SEE MORE: Is this the 'ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest' campaign ever?

$18.4 million
Amount raised by Karl Rove–founded American Crossroads last year

$4.4 million
Amount raised by Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Why GOP voters are sitting out the primaries: 4 theories

$250 million
Non-super PAC funds raised by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee last year 

Sources: American Prospect, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Demos, Los Angeles Times, Politico

SEE MORE: How deep-pocketed super PACs became 'shadow campaigns'

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

How super PACs are changing the GOP presidential race

Newt Gingrich remains a viable candidate in the Republican presidential race today in large part because of a $10 million donation – half arriving just before and half just after the South Carolina primary – from a Las Vegas casino billionaire and his wife.

Two years ago, that money bomb would have been illegal. Now, it's a prominent feature of Campaign 2012, in which unlimited sums of money donated to "super political-action committees" – not directly to a candidate's own campaign – can, in an instant, reset the odds for a race.

So far, these outside groups – super PACs, for short – have collectively spent $40.9 million to influence 2012 presidential and congressional races. That's twice what had been spent by outside groups at the same point in the 2008 campaign cycle, when both parties had competitive presidential nominating races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money

They are also having an impact on the tone and scope of political ads. Candidate-sponsored ads, which accounted for 97 percent of advertising in the 2008 GOP presidential primary, dropped to 56 percent of the total in the 2012 primaries through Jan. 25, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, analyzing data by Kantar Media. Moreover, the super PAC ads are overwhelmingly negative. 

 So what, you ask? The US Supreme Court, after all, ruled in 2010 that such unlimited spending on campaigns is a way for people and corporations to exercise their free-speech rights. What difference has this infusion of political cash via super PACs made, really, to Election 2012?

That jury is still out on the long-term impacts, but political analysts see the super PACs changing the nature of the presidential campaign. They've helped produce an unusually bitter and volatile GOP primary season, turning the airwaves in early-voting states toxic with negative ads. They've also extended the campaigns of candidates who otherwise might not have lasted, they say. Some candidates have even complained that the unlimited spending by outside groups is eclipsing the messages of their own campaigns (though critics say those are crocodile tears, given a super PAC's ability to convey a scorching message that a candidate is happy to have someone else deliver).

Take those checks from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, which went to Winning Our Future, a newly minted super PAC staffed by former Gingrich aides but by law not affiliated with the Gingrich campaign. The super PAC used the extra millions to buy broadcast time for a 28-minute smear ad on rival Mitt Romney's record creating jobs, the linchpin of his campaign. "Nothing mattered but greed," the ad's narrator said. "The suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town."

The ad stirred a backlash, especially among establishment conservatives. But its fighting tone and Mr. Gingrich's own feisty debate appearances seemed to draw voter support in South Carolina. As for the ad's inaccuracies and accusatory tone, Gingrich said it was all out of his hands.

South Carolina became a Gingrich rout – payback for blistering ads from Restore Our Future, a super PAC staffed by Romney backers, that had helped topple then-front-runner Gingrich in the Iowa caucuses earlier in January.

Even as super PACS emerge as the junkyard dogs of Campaign 2012, their influence is being hotly debated. Their defenders, mainly conservatives, say super PACs' ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money – including from corporations or unions still barred from contributing directly to candidate campaigns – marks an end to limits on free speech imposed by Congress.

"The Supreme Court has determined that political free speech is protected under the Constitution," says Barney Keller, a spokesman for the Club for Growth, an antitax group that has funded political ads. "Outside groups like us have a constitutionally protected right to say what we want in an election."

The Adelsons, for their part, have said their contribution to the pro-Gingrich super PAC was to help a friend, with no strings attached.

But for advocates of campaign-finance reform, the rise of big-money super PACs represents a step backward toward pre-Watergate days, before Congress sought to impose some discipline on funds politicians could accept – or extort – from corporations or individuals.

"We've come close to full circle," says Michael Malbin of the Campaign Finance Institute. "But as long as contribution limits are in place, even if they are circumvented by the super PACs, you don't have quite the possibilities for extortion that you saw with the [Richard] Nixon reelection campaign."

Some critics question whether the ban on coordination between candidates and the super PACs supporting them is mere fiction.

"There is no wall between the campaigns and the super PACs," says David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a group that advocates campaign- finance reform to limit the influence of big donors on elections. "They are coordinating through the media. What it takes right now to be a leading candidate is not the ability to raise money; it's to find a handful of incredibly wealthy individuals to spend incredible amounts of money on your behalf."

Exhibit A is the up-and-down impact of super PACs on the Gingrich campaign.

The pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC, created last July, has so far spent $17.5 million in the 2012 campaign, mainly to attack Gingrich on ethics, judgment, and electability. Barely funded in Iowa, Gingrich was caught off guard by its negative ads against him.

"If you were watching television in Iowa, you were seeing wall-to-wall anti-Gingrich [ads] in the evening," says David Perlmutter, director of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. "The wildly fluctuating poll numbers in Iowa were, to some extent, the result of the money bombs."

In South Carolina, super PAC spending helped produce an unusually toxic campaign, in a state where politics is often rough-and-tumble.

"This is the nastiest, hardest-hitting campaign I've ever seen in 25 years in South Carolina," says former GOP political consultant David Woodard. “The super PACs were the ones who really ramped up the negativity.

“I know this stuff works, but the question is how much of it – and what happens to the dignity of the candidate when so much of it is filled with this exaggerated nonsense?” he adds. 

Concern about big-spending outside groups is prompting efforts to curtail their influence – by both candidates and grass-roots activists.

In the US Senate race in Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown (R) and likely Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren struck a pact on Jan. 23 to try to limit special-interest attack ads in their race, expected to be the most heavily funded Senate contest this cycle. Under the deal, proposed by Senator Brown, both candidates agreed to donate half the cost of any third-party ad attacking the other to charity.

But outside groups say the deal is not enforceable – and that super PACs and other monied outside groups will not be deterred. Some complain that the Brown-Warren pact is unbalanced because it does not take into account union contributions that can't be measured in cash.

"Because the agreement allows union phone banks, direct mail, and get-out-the-vote drives – all union core specialties – Warren's latest agreement has loopholes the Teamsters could drive a truck through ... and government unions could drive forklifts of paperwork through," said Steven Law of American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC that has raised $6.7 million to date for its use in the 2012 election, in an e-mail.

Meanwhile, critics on the left say the only way out is to directly challenge the Supreme Court's interpretation that money is speech, via an amendment to the US Constitution.

"With the negative effects of the Supreme Court decision [in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission] already becoming clear, a constitutional amendment is necessary to safeguard against the influence of big money and anonymous spending," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon, in a Jan. 26 statement.

He is proposing a constitutional amendment that would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns. Amending the Constitution, though, is an arduous process, requiring ratification by at least 37 states. It would take years.

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money 

 Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

The 'disturbing' rise of super PACs: By the numbers

A small number of super-wealthy Americans are pumping a lot of lightly regulated money into the political system. Here's how it breaks down

President Obama got some grief this week when he reversed course on super PACs, suddenly encouraging wealthy supporters to contribute to the political spending behemoths that can accept unlimited donations from individuals and organizations. (Read a quick primer on super PACs here.) Obama campaign manager Jim Messina explained the change of heart as a nod to reality, saying Democrats can't "unilaterally disarm" while cash pours into Republican coffers. How much cash? A lot, say Kenneth Vogel and Abby Phillip at Politico. A new report from two public-interest groups confirms fears "that the cash for big-ticket campaign spending like TV advertising is increasingly controlled by an elite class of super-rich patrons not afraid to plunk down a million bucks or more for favored candidates and causes." Here, a stats-based look at the "disturbing" super PACs:

299
Registered super PACs

SEE MORE: Will the culture war shape the 2012 race?

$181 million
Amount raised by all super PACs in the past two years

56
Percent of those donations that came from "fewer than 200 super-rich people"

93
Percent of individual super PAC donors who gave at least $10,000

SEE MORE: The Nevada caucuses: 5 key questions

$34 million
Amount donated by just 32 people last year

17
People who gave at least $1 million to super PACs last year

SEE MORE: Tuesday's 'stunning' Santorum sweep: 6 takeaways

15
$1 million-plus donations that went to Republican-aligned super PACs

$2 million
Amount DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg donated to Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Next up, Nevada: Can anyone overtake Romney?

$8.6 million 
Amount Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons and his company gave to American Crossroads and other GOP-aligned super PACs

$11 million
Amount casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family donated to Newt Gingrich's super PAC

SEE MORE: Nominating Mitt Malaprop

$175,000
Amount liberal financier George Soros donated to super PACs (though he made political contributions of more than $20 million in 2004)

$30.2 million
Amount raised by Mitt Romney–aligned Restore Our Future PAC last year

SEE MORE: Is this the 'ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest' campaign ever?

$18.4 million
Amount raised by Karl Rove–founded American Crossroads last year

$4.4 million
Amount raised by Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Why GOP voters are sitting out the primaries: 4 theories

$250 million
Non-super PAC funds raised by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee last year 

Sources: American Prospect, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Demos, Los Angeles Times, Politico

SEE MORE: How deep-pocketed super PACs became 'shadow campaigns'

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Super PAC-Men: Obama Bundlers Gone Wild!

The White House didn't blow a dog whistle for deep-pocketed liberal donors on Monday. No, the administration whipped out a supersized vuvuzela. Blaring message: Let loose the campaign finance-bundling hounds of super PAC war!

President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That's the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.

Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that "senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events." Of course, they "won't be soliciting contributions." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

This brazen about-face for Team Obama is a goldmine of campaign lies, contortions and epic hypocrisy. Let us count the ways.

— A bundle of contradictions. "Bundling" is the rustling up of aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees, a practice to circumvent individual donation limits that Obama has long condemned. When he announced his presidential intentions in 2007, candidate Obama decried "the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He indignantly singled out "the best bundlers" who get the "greatest access" to power.

Last week, Obama acknowledged raising at least $74 million through his team of big-time bundlers who have been showered with access, tax dollars and plum patronage positions. This elite group of Hollywood celebrities (such as open-borders actress Eva Longoria), political cronies (such as Chicago bagman Louis "The Vacuum" Susman) and politically correct businessmen (such as bankrupt Solyndra investor George Kaiser) now totals a whopping 445 gold-card members.

— The roar of the revolving door. In his Monday announcement, Messina bragged about how the White House has enacted "sweeping" reforms to "close the revolving door between government and lobbyists." In truth, the administration has widened the carousel and removed the brakes. The Obama-cheerleading Fishwrap of Record (The New York Times) itself identified at least 15 bundlers "involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies."

Moreover, "at least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration in some capacity; at least 250 of the bundlers visited the White House, and another 30 have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so in the future," according to a recent iWatch News report. Several first-time 2012 bundlers already have snagged administration posts:

— Norma Lee Funger, of Potomac, Md., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, was appointed last month to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

— Glenn S. Gerstell, of Washington, D.C., who bundled the same amount, was appointed to the National Infrastructure Advisory Commission last fall.

— Richard Binder, of Bethesda, Md., another $50,000 to $100,000 bundler, was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health last spring.

And note: The most transparent administration ever still refuses to disclose recusal orders involving the nearly 100 lobbyists and ex-lobbyists on its payroll.

— Super PAC super-hypocrisy. "Super PACs" are federal political action committees that only make independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, candidates. Their birth and growth were fueled indirectly by the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling in 2010. The decision overturned severe campaign finance restrictions that essentially criminalized certain forms of political speech. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it during oral arguments: "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a "threat to our democracy," Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests," he warned. And last July, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super PAC talk. "Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs," he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won't fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other Cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will.

In 2008, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: "So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can't just talk the talk."

Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can!

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

View the original article here

Why Obama’s flip-flop on super PACs won’t matter

President Obama’s flip-flop toward embrace of the "super PAC" formed to support his reelection campaign should come as no surprise.

Yes, Mr. Obama railed against the Supreme Court decision that allowed outside groups to support campaigns with unlimited donations, visibly offending some justices over the matter at his 2010 State of the Union address. More recently, he has called them a “threat to democracy.”  

But the super PAC that supports Obama’s reelection, Priorities USA Action, was getting clobbered. It raised just $4.4 million last year. The conservative American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by former George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove, raked in $51 million. The biggest super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, brought in more than $30 million.

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money

All told, experts predict the Republican super PACs will collect a half billion dollars for the 2012 election. And Team Obama wasn’t about to “unilaterally disarm,” as campaign manager Jim Messina put it in an e-mail late Monday to supporters.

“The campaign has made clear that they cannot engage in this campaign, they cannot compete effectively ... if they play by a different set of rules,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday.

Liberal bloggers largely support Obama’s decision, agreeing that he cannot go into electoral battle under the system he wants, but with the system he has. The most vocal critic has been former Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin, co-author of the 2002 campaign-finance law aimed at limiting the role of money in politics.

"This is dancing with the devil. I know a lot of Democrats in D.C. don’t agree, and I understand the desire to do everything possible to win," Mr. Feingold said in a statement. "But this decision will push Democrats to become corporate-lite, and will send us head-on into a battle we know we will lose, because Republicans like Mitt Romney and his friends have and will spend more money."

But chances are, Obama’s flip-flop won’t hurt him with voters. In his first presidential campaign, he initially promised to operate within the public financing system, which would have limited how much he could spend.  By June of 2008, he had changed his mind. In an e-mail to supporters then, Obama declared his independence “from a broken system.” Republican Sen. John McCain, his eventual opponent in the general election, accused him of breaking a promise.

Voters hardly blinked. Obama went on to raise $750 million, and won the presidency. As best we can tell, there weren’t legions of voters who otherwise would have supported Obama but for his broken promise on public financing.

The real challenge for Obama may be finding enough liberal money-bags to open up their checkbooks and match the Republicans in their super PAC giving, or least come in with respectable numbers. The best-known big donor to Democratic causes is billionaire investor George Soros. There’s big money in liberal Hollywood. And there are Obama’s “bundlers,” major donors who solicit additional donations from their personal networks.   

On Monday night, Obama campaign officials had a conference call with major bundlers, explaining the change in policy and encouraging them to donate to the Obama super PAC. According to CNN, one bundler on the call “questioned the effectiveness of the new approach, explaining every large donor of means had already been approached for a donation by Priorities USA.”

Election 101: Five basics about 'super PACs' and 2012 campaign money

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

The $1 Million Super PAC Donor's Club

An analysis by The Los Angeles Times has found that are 17 people or companies who gave more than $1 million to a super PAC last year, showing how just one wealthy individual can make a big impact on the election. A small handful of those donors gave in excess of $2 million, sometimes to more than one group or candidate.

RELATED: Pragmatist Obama Finds Idealism In Opposing His Own Super PACs

The end of January brought a massive data dump of Federal Election Commission filings that has given American a slightly clearer picture of how the 2012 election is being fought and paid for. Because super PACs are not bound by the limits that apply to individual donations made directly to candidates, those with the means are able to pump as much as they want to the group that may or not be behind their favorite candidate.

RELATED: In the Sport of Fundraising, This Is Who Colbert's Super PAC Beat

Everyone knows about Sheldon Adelson, who has so far donated $11 million to the pro-Newt Gingrich PAC "Winning our Future" (by far the most given by any single person. But there are others, like Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, who has given a total $8.6 million to several different groups. On the left, tther'es Jeffery Katzenberg, the Hollywood mogul who has given $2 million to a PAC supporting Barack Obama.

RELATED: Zombie Super PACs: What Happens to the Money After a Candidate Drops Out

There are also the corporations, most of them private or non-profit, that are flooding the market this election season. However, even those donations are often the work of the wealthy person known to be running the company, or in some cases, an overt way to disguise the individual putting up the money. Disclosure laws require that the source of donations be revealed, but if the company is a private entity, it doesn''t have to say where it got its money in the first place. A story in The New York Times mentions a company that gave $250,000 to a Mitt Romney super PAC, despite not having a headquarters or any employees.

RELATED: D.C. Is Already Occupied

Those same laws have discourage big publicly traded companies from getting involved in with super PAC in an effort to avoid potential controversies. According to the LA Times, only one public traded company (Chesapeake Energy) donated to a super PAC last year. As a result, the new rules only magnify the influence of wealthy individuals like Adelson, Simmons and Katzenberg, whose political leanings are well-known and who don't care what people think about it. 

RELATED: How Super PACs Bury Democracy

Simmons, for example, gave $1.1 million to Perry's campaigns for governor of Texas, gave $3 million to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2004, and paid $2.9 million ads about Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayres in 2008. He gave another $1.1 million to Perry's presidential super PAC, but also spread the money around to Newt Gingrich and other candidates. That suggest he's pushing an agenda not a candidate and that (given his $9.6 billion net worth) there will be a lot more where that came from before this election is over.

Photo via Rob DiCaterino (goodrob13) on Flickr

View the original article here