Ad related to Show me the Money, US Politics and I इदं न ममWhy this ad?

1. The Influence of Money

   www.maplight.org/MoneyAndPolitics

   on Politics. MAPLight shows the connections. Learn More Today.

Ads related to Show me the Money, US Politics and IWhy these ads?

1. The Influence of Money

   www.maplight.org/MoneyAndPolitics

   on Politics. MAPLight shows the connections. Learn More Today.

2. Top Political Donors

   www.followthemoney.org/

   View Political Giving At A Glance. See Top Donors & Special Interests.

Mitt Romney has been accused of being inconsistent about health care, abortion, gun control, and whether the American car industry should have been rescued.

When it comes to raising money from wealthy executives and financiers in sumptuous private settings, he is unswerving and highly skilled, as demonstrated by his estimated $3 million take from a trio of events on July 8 in the Hamptons. The highlight of Romney’s Long Island beach jaunt was a $50,000-per-person dinner at the home of billionaire David Koch.

We don’t know what Romney told guests at Chez Koch, because, like most fundraisers he attends at supporters’ homes, it was off-limits to all but those opening large wallets, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its July 16 issue. As usual, journalists were kept at a safe distance, and the campaign wouldn’t release Romney’s remarks. It’s safe to assume he revealed something — in substance or tone — that he wouldn’t want the public to hear. Why else the secrecy?

President Barack Obama is almost as tight-lipped about the lavish dinners he headlines. His handlers allow reporters to witness boilerplate opening remarks before herding them to the curb. Yet Obama is so determined to make sure there’s no record of his less formal comments that campaign workers confiscate guests’ phones and put them in plastic bags before some fundraisers, including one held on May 14 at the New York home of Blackstone Group LP (BX) President Tony James.

Hollywood Pals

Like Democrats before him, the president tends to draw the most attention when he pals around behind closed doors with liberals in the entertainment industry, such as George Clooney, who hosted a $40,000-a-head Obama event at his Hollywood home on May 10, and Sarah Jessica Parker, who had 50 people over to her Manhattan townhouse for a similarly priced supper in mid-June.

There are many aspects of our money-soaked political culture to worry about. One that we seem to be getting awfully comfortable with is the off-the-record fundraiser, which consumes an increasing amount of presidential candidates’ time and energy.

Raising money under a cloak of silence suggests that candidates have one version of their pitch that they offer ordinary voters and another, more candid one the public isn’t allowed to hear. That’s the appeal of events limited to mega- donors, and it isn’t a good thing, says Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“What,” she asks, “do they tell their big donors that they don’t tell the rest of us?”

Straying From Script

Obama and Romney are too sophisticated to engage over shrimp cocktail in an explicit quid pro quo to kill a regulation or promote someone’s cousin to a judgeship. The more likely scenario, one that must keep their aides awake at night, is that in a relaxed setting among people who have shown their friendship in cold, hard cash, the candidate will stray from the usual script and inadvertently say what he really thinks.

That’s what happened during Obama’s first run for the White House, when he told guests at a closed-door San Francisco fundraiser that some small-town voters are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.” That comment, which Obama later tried to retract, became public because a donor gave an audio recording of the speech to a news website.

Now Obama takes precautions. At a March 30 fundraiser at Maine’s Portland Museum of Art, the president asked the 130 supporters in attendance not to post video of the private session.

Secret Musings

In April, Romney was overheard at a private backyard fundraiser in Palm Beach, Florida, musing about eliminating the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and killing the mortgage-interest deduction on second homes — ideas he hasn’t backed publicly. Those are the kinds of things voters are entitled to know from a presidential candidate even without paying tens of thousands of dollars.

There may be a reasonable explanation why Obama and Romney don’t want the public to hear what they’re telling donors. If so, they aren’t saying what it is.

Instead, Obama spokeswoman Katie Hogan provides a written statement: “The Obama campaign has and will continue to allow press into any fundraising event where the president is delivering remarks to supporters, no matter the venue.” That’s true, as far as it goes. Only after the press is shooed from the room, though, does the main event begin.

More Events

The need to raise more and more cash means the number of fundraising events has increased dramatically, according to Brendan Doherty, a political scientist at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of the new book, The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign.

As of July 9, Doherty had tracked 177 Obama fundraising appearances during the third and fourth years of his presidency. The comparable number for George W. Bush was 86, or less than half. For Bill Clinton it was 70; for George H.W. Bush, 24; and for Jimmy Carter, 25. Ronald Reagan’s total in 1983-84: three.

“The rising costs of campaigns, combined with contribution limits that are low relative to the costs of campaigns, have led presidents to spend more and more time raising money — out of necessity,” Doherty says.

The 2012 race for the White House is the first since the public-financing system was enacted after Watergate in which both candidates have shunned taxpayer money in favor of funding their operations with individual donations. Even as spending by super PACs and other outside groups has increased, the campaigns are devoting more of the candidates’ time to raising cash.

Controlling the Money

“Each campaign still wants money they can directly control, and that money they have to raise themselves,” says Doherty.

The Romney campaign not only keeps what their man says at fundraisers a secret; it refuses to say how many he attends.

“We won’t get into that,” says Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman. It’s evidently enough to clobber Obama in the race for dollars.

An ace investor fundraiser during his years heading Bain Capital LLC, Romney has proved just as adept as a political rainmaker. In June, for the second straight month, he and his party raised more than Obama and the Democrats: $106 million versus $71 million. At that pace, Romney is on track to raise $800 million or more by Election Day.

That means the challenger could outspend an incumbent himself known for his buckraking. On July 10 the Obama campaign sent an urgent e-mail to supporters: “We’re getting outraised — a first for a sitting president, if this continues,” it read. “We can win a race in which the other side spends more than we do. But not this much more. So I need your help. If you believe that regular people should decide elections, then please chip in $3 or more today.” It was signed, “Barack.”

That week, Obama headlined two $40,000-a-plate events at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel. The $3 regular people weren’t invited.

To contact the reporter on this story: Paul Barrett in New York at pbarrett17@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Wes Kosova at wkosova@bloomberg.net

Search for a PAC

Save/Share:

PACs

Political Action Committees

This section lists campaign contributions by PACs and donations to PACs, broken down by sector, industry and unique PAC. Only groups that made contributions during the current or last two election cycles are listed here.

To look up a specific PAC, just type in a few letters or a word contained in the name in the search box to the right.

Locate PACs by economic sector:

Or find an industry on this tree of 121 sectors & industries.

NOTE: PACs with diversified interests are listed under their primary business (e.g., you’ll find Boeing under “defense aerospace” rather than “aircraft manufacturers”.).
Also, for ease of identification, the names used in this section are those of the organization connected with the PAC, rather than the official PAC name. For example, the “Coca-Cola Company Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government” is simply listed as “Coca-Cola Co.”

Top PACs for: ALL | DEMS | REPUBS
PAC Name	Total Amount
Operating Engineers Union	$2,374,475
Honeywell International	$2,267,854
National Beer Wholesalers Assn	$2,179,000
National Assn of Realtors	$2,054,786
AT&T Inc	$1,900,500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees	$1,848,725
American Assn for Justice	$1,831,500
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$1,830,700
Lockheed Martin	$1,709,500
American Bankers Assn	$1,686,450
Every Republican is Crucial PAC	$1,631,000
(See Top 20 List)

Interest Groups

Lobbying

Revolving Door

PACs

• Top PACs
• Industry Breakdown
• Leadership PACs
• Super PACs
• Search
• Foreign-connected PACs
• What is a PAC?

Heavy Hitters

527s

Join us on:

About these ads

The Center for Responsive Politics
Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License
by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government.

Count Cash & Make Change

© 2012 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy. Ad choices .

Sheldon Adelson (pictured) has already given

$25 million to super PACs.

Super PAC donations: $25,000,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 1

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam have a lot of money — and they aren’t afraid to use it for political purposes.

During the rough-and-tumble primary season, the couple donated $20 million to Winning Our Future, a super PAC with ties to former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
The donations, which were used to finance attack ads against Mitt Romney, are largely credited with keeping Gingrich in the race while his campaign struggled to raise money.
A $5 million donation was later returned by the super PAC after Gingrich abandoned his bid.
Adelson plans to spend even more to support Republican efforts this fall. He has already given $10 million to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC.
Adelson, the current CEO of Las Vegas Sands, isn’t likely to stop there. His total donations this cycle might top $100 million, with some of that going to groups that are not required to disclose their donors.
No matter the final number, Adelson can afford it. The tycoon’s fortune is estimated to be in the $25 billion range.

NEXT: Harold Simmons

• 109

comments

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Harold Simmons

2 of 9

Harold Simmons, the number two donor in Republican circles, consults famed political strategist Karl Rove (pictured).

Super PAC donations: $15,200,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 2

Harold Simmons, who played a central role in the development of leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, has given $15.2 million to super PACs this cycle, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Simmons has spread the cash around. FEC filings reveal the Dallas billionaire gave $11 million to Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads, while $800,000 went to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC. A super PAC that supported Newt Gingrich got $1.1 million
Simmons, the head of Dallas-based Contran Corp., also kicked in $1.2 million to Rick Santorum’s Red White and Blue Fund after consulting Rove, who The Wall Street Journal dubbed Simmons’ “personal political muse.”
Simmons told the Journal he was aiming to spend $36 million before November, with the primary goal of removing President Obama from office.
“Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama,” Simmons told the Journal. “Obama is the most dangerous American alive … because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country.”

NEXT: Bob Perry

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Bob Perry

3 of 9

The super PAC supporting Republican presedential candidate Mitt Romney (pictured) has received the bulk of Bob Perry’s donations.

Super PAC donations: $6,700,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 3

Bob Perry does not often step into the media spotlight, but the Houston homebuilder has a track record as one of the Republican Party’s most reliable mega-donors.
Perry helped bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that attacked presidential hopefully John Kerry in 2004, and he has generously supported conservative candidates and causes in Texas.
So far this cycle, Perry has given $4.75 million to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC, but also received a refund of $750,000 from the group. A super PAC associated with Texas Gov. Rick Perry got $100,000. Perry also gave $2.5 million to American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC.
Perry was the top super PAC donor in 2010, giving a total of $7 million to American Crossroads as Republicans posted gains in the House and Senate.

NEXT: Peter Thiel

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Peter Thiel

4 of 9

Peter Thiel (pictured) runs a hedge fund and venture capital operation in Silicon Valley.

Super PAC donations: $3,735,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 4

Renaissance man Peter Thiel runs both a hedge fund and venture capital shop in Silicon Valley.
He also provided much of the dough collected by Endorse Liberty, a pro-Ron Paul super PAC that received $2.6 million from Thiel.
Thiel’s political philosophy trends toward libertarianism, but his most recent mega donation went to Club for Growth, a group dedicated to smaller government that worked to defeat Sen. Dick Lugar in a GOP primary earlier this year.
The donations are just a tiny fraction of Thiel’s net worth. In addition to PayPal, which he helped found, Thiel has made a few other choice business moves.
In 2004, the angel investor put up $500,000 for Facebook’s first financing round. His shares are now worth closer to $1 billion.

NEXT: Jerrold Perenchio

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

• 109

comments

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Jerrold Perenchio

5 of 9

Jerrold Perenchio gave $500,000 to Restore Our Future, pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

Super PAC donations: $2,600,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 5

Jerrold Perenchio — also known as Jerry — is the former chairman and CEO of Univision.
He has long been active in political circles, and the Sunlight Foundation estimates his lifetime giving to political candidates and causes to be $50 million.
This cycle, Perenchio, who is said to be the largest landowner in Malibu, has donated $2 million to American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC.
Perenchio gave the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future $500,000 in February.

NEXT: Foster Friess

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Foster Friess

6 of 9

Foster Friess (pictured) sometimes refers to himself as a “billionaire wanna-be.”

Super PAC donations: $2,250,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 6

Foster Friess, an investment manager who lives in Wyoming, has embraced the media spotlight that comes with mega-sized campaign donations.
Friess donated $2.1 million to the Red, White and Blue Fund, a super PAC that backed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in the Republican presidential primary.
The donations accounted for a bulk of the group’s revenue, and Friess could often be spotted at Santorum campaign events and on television talking up the candidate.
But rather than letting his money talk, Friess became part of the campaign narrative after making a joke on national television about contraception, saying that “back in (his) days” women used Bayer aspirin as birth control. “The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly,” Friess said.
Friess later apologized.
The investment manager’s last donation came in March, and it remains to be seen whether he will give generously with Santorum out of the race.
Friess, while extremely wealthy, does not have the deepest pockets, and sometimes refers to himself as a “billionaire wanna-be.”
NEXT: William Dore

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

• 109

comments

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

William Dore

7 of 9

William Dore’s donations went to a super PAC that supports Rick Santorum (pictured).

Super PAC donations: $2,250,000

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 7

William Dore put all his bets on Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, giving a total of $2.25 million to a super PAC that supports the former Pennsylvania senator.
The donations, which came in four installments, were made between January and March of this year, and stopped when it became clear that Mitt Romney would capture the Republican nomination.
Dore made his money in the energy sector. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Dore served as the president, CEO and chairman of the board of Global Industries, a firm that handles pipeline and infrastructure construction for oil and gas industries.
Dore announced his retirement from the firm in 2006.
According to a biography posted on the website of the Horatio Alger Association, which honored Dore in 2000, the energy executive climbed out of poverty before making his mark.
As a child, ten people shared his family’s two-bedroom home in southern Louisiana, which had no hot running water.

NEXT: Jon Huntsman Sr.

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

• 109

comments

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Jon Huntsman Sr.

8 of 9

Jon M. Huntsman Sr. (pictured on the right) donated to a super PAC that backed his son’s presedential bid.

Super PAC donations: $2,222,039

Political orientation: Conservative

Donation ranking: 8

For Jon M. Huntsman Sr., political donations are all in the family.
The industrialist made more than $2.2 million in donations to Our Destiny PAC, a super PAC that supported his son, the former ambassador to China, Jon M. Huntsman Jr.
The donations were made in 10 installments between October and January. The maximum donation topped out at $400,000.
Much of the super PAC money was used to fund advertisements in New Hampshire, where Huntsman hoped to perform well.
But it wasn’t enough, and the younger Huntsman dropped out of the Republican presidential race in South Carolina following a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary.
The level of giving by his father, who could have afforded far more, was said to be a source of tension within the Huntsman campaign.
Huntsman consistently said he was unaware of any contributions from his father to the super PAC supportive of his candidacy, citing federal law prohibiting any coordination between super PACs and campaigns.
“He’s my dad. He’s my best friend. I love him dearly,” Huntsman told CNN in November. “He can do whatever he wants to do. We don’t talk about those things; we can’t.”

NEXT: Jeffrey Katzenberg

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

Top super PAC donors

•  6 
• Email Print

Jeffrey Katzenberg

9 of 9

Jeffrey Katzenberg (pictured) has donated $2 million to a pro-Obama super PAC.

Super PAC donations: $2,125,000

Political orientation: Liberal

Donation ranking: 9

Jeffrey Katzenberg is the rare exception on a list dominated by conservative donors who jumped in to finance super PACs during the Republican primaries.
Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks Animation studios, cut a $2 million check in May to Priorities USA Action, which backs President Barack Obama. The donation is the largest so far by a Hollywood player.
Democrats have largely avoided large donations to super PACs, and Priorities USA Action has fallen far behind rival Republican groups.
Still, the president’s campaign is expected to raise $1 billion this cycle, a number that would break all previous campaign funding records.

NEXT

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney – Last updated June 26 2012: 4:37 PM ET

Source:

CBS News
Copyright © 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.

May 21, 2012 4:25 AM

• Print
• Text

FEC reports reveal April’s big super PAC donors

• comments

  6

• inShare
• More

By

Phil Hirschkorn

Topics

Campaign 2012

President Obama and Mitt Romney

(Credit: Getty Images)

(CBS News) President Obama’s re-election campaign continues to raise more money than challenger Mitt Romney’s campaign, but a “super PAC” supporting Romney continues to outperform all independent groups supporting a single candidate. The Obama campaign raised $25.7 million and spent $14.6 million in April and entered May with $115.1 million cash on hand, according to the latest round of reports to the Federal Election Commission. The president’s campaign had more than 12 times the cash as Romney’s.
Romney’s campaign raised $11.7 million and spent $12.6 million in April and entered May with $9.2 million cash on hand, according to its FEC report.
Sunday was the deadline for monthly reports from campaigns and super PACs.
Special Section: Election 2012
Ron Paul wins majority of delegates in Minnesota
Rubio fires up S.C. GOP by attacking Obama The reports revealed Republican presidential also-rans beaten by Romney were in varied states of financial shape.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suspended active campaigning only one week ago, entered May with $2.5 million cash on hand and no debt.
By contrast, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s campaign, which ended May 2, had $800,000 cash on hand but $4.8 million in debt.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum’s campaign, which was suspended April 10, had $1 million cash on hand but $2.3 million in debt.
The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future took in another $4.6 million, its lowest monthly fundraising total of the year.
The group spent $2.9 million in April and entered May with $8.2 million cash on hand. The super PAC announced earlier this month it was spending $4.3 million to run a pro-Romney ad in nine battleground states.
Independent expenditure political action committees are known as super PACs because they can raise and spend unlimited sums of money on political advocacy, thanks to a pair of 2010 court decisions.
The Supreme Court’s so-called Citizen United case opened the door to unlimited spending by individuals, unions and corporations, which was followed by the Speech Now case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which allowed for unlimited contributions.
Single-candidate presidential super PACs established for seven Republican presidential candidates — Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum, former businessman Herman Cain, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry — and Mr. Obama have now reported spending $89 million on advertising and advocacy through April.
With $48.3 million spent by Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney group alone was responsible for 55 percent of the total, and its roster of big donors continued to grow, with a pair of Texans topping the April donor list.
Homebuilder Bob Perry gave another $750,000 to Restore Our Future, elevating his total to $3.75 million, the most of any donor to the group, while investor John Kleinheinz gave the super PAC $1 million, making him its 16th million-dollar donor.
A number of CEOs opened their checkbooks for Restore Our Future.
Harold Hamm, chairman and CEO of Continental Resources, an Oklahoma oil exploration company, gave $985,000 while the more well-known founder of the Limited retail chain, Leslie Wexner, from Ohio, gave $250,000. Wexner is the 18th billionaire to contribute to the pro-Romney group and the 24th overall to give to a super PAC.
Rocco Ortenzio, co-founder and chairman of Select Medical, a publicly-traded chain of hospitals and outpatient clinics, from Pennsylvania, gave $250,000.
Rodger Crouse and Mark Leder, the co-CEOs of Sun Capital Advisers, from Florida, each gave $100,000 as did Wilbur Ross, CEO of WL Ross & Co., an investment firm that specializes in turnaround of distressed companies, from Florida, and Jack Caveney, the retired founder of Panduit, an Illinois-based provider of physical infrastructure for businesses.
Edmund Kelly, chairman of the board of insurance giant Liberty Mutual, from Massachusetts, and Robert Liggett, the investor and retired chairman of the Big Boy restaurant chain, from Michigan, each gave $25,000.
A friend from Romney’s old firm, Bain Capital, Steven Zide, from Connecticut, gave $250,000.
Sam Zell, the billionaire real estate mogul from Illinois, donated another $30,000 to Restore Our Future, bringing his total to $100,000.
C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush and former ambassador to the European Union, from Washington, D.C., gave $50,000 to the super PAC.
Two oil companies made notable donations in their own name — Hallador Energy, a publicly traded, Denver-based company, gave $100,000 to the pro-Romney group, while United Refining, a New York-based marketer of petroleum products, gave another $25,000, bringing its total to $50,000.
Pepsi MidAmerica, a distributor of Pepsi beverages in five states owned by the Crisp family of Marion, Ill., gave $5,000.
The main pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, raised $1.6 million in April and spent $1.9 million, entering May with $4.7 million cash on hand.
A union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, was the group’s biggest donor for the month with a $1 million contribution, the second union to give that amount to the pro-Obama group and its fifth million-dollar donor.
Another union, the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, gave Priorities USA Action $250,000.
Joseph Kiani, the chairman and CEO of the medical technology company Masimo Corp., from California, gave $100,000 to the pro-Obama group.
Michael King, of King World Productions, from California, gave $50,000. King World, the TV syndication company behind “Jeopardy,” “Wheel of Fortune,” and “Dr. Phil,” was acquired by CBS.
John Rogers, CEO of the investment firm Ariel Capital, from Chicago, gave another $50,000, bringing his total to $100,000.
American Crossroads, the leading super PAC backing conservative Republicans, had a relatively quiet month, raising $1.8 million in April, but remains the richest independent group required to disclose its donors, with $25.5 million cash on hand entering May.
Its largest donor was once again Texas tycoon Harold Simmons, who gave another $1 million, raising to $13 million the total donations of this campaign cycle to American Crossroads from him, his wife and his company, Contran.
Simmons, the second-largest donor in the nation behind casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, has now funneled more than $17 million to various Republican super PACs.
The super PAC’s sister organization, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, better known as Crossroads GPS, last week launched a $25 million ad campaign against Mr. Obama in 10 battleground states.
Crossroads GPS, which describes itself as “a policy and grassroots advocacy organization,” is classified as a 501(c)4 organization under the tax code, which means it is not required to disclose its donors.
The Crossroads groups were co-founded in 2010 by former top political aide to President George W. Bush Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie.
The political director of American Crossroads, Carl Forti, is the executive director of Restore Our Future, and was political director of Romney’s 2008 presidential bid.
Club for Growth Action, a like-minded super PAC that opposes higher taxes and government spending, raised $723,000 and spent $2.3 million in April, according to its monthly FEC report.
Team DeMint, the official campaign committee of South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, a leader of the Tea Party movement, gave $200,000 to Club for Growth Action, bringing its total donation to $700,000.
Jerry Hayden, the former president of Peacock Engineering, an Arizona packaging company, and his wife gave the group a combined $300,000, bringing their total to $400,000.
The anti-incumbent super PAC Campaign for Primary Accountability raised and spent around $380,000 in April and entered May with $431,000 cash on hand.
Its most notable donor was Leo Linbeck III, president and CEO of Aquinas Enterprises, a Houston-based construction and real estate firm with more than $500 million in annual revenue.
Linbeck gave the group another $130,000 in April, bringing his total to $1.2 million. Counting Linbeck and April donors who reached seven figures, there are now 33 million-dollar donors to super PACs this election cycle.
A previous donor to Campaign for Primary Accountability was Joe Ricketts, the TD Ameritrade CEO who gave the group $500,000 last year.
Ricketts grabbed headlines last week because a proposal for a negative ad campaign reminding voters of Mr. Obama’s past ties to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright was submitted to another super PAC that he founded, the Ending Spending Fund. The Ricketts team disavowed the idea.
The Ending Spending super PAC spent $255,000 in a late ad buy to help Nebraska Senate candidate Deb Fischer achieve a surprising win in a Republican primary last week.

Source:

• Copyright © 2012 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. |
• “The Huffington Post” is a registered trademark of TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Part of HPMG News
•  
•  
•  
  • Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading
  • Enable Social Reading
  • i
  

  Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com

  GET UPDATES FROM Sam:

  Like

  12k
  

  Michael McAuliff mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com

  GET UPDATES FROM Michael:

  Like

  5k

  DSCC Warns Super PAC Donors To ‘Wake Up’

  Posted: 05/22/2012 12:10 pm Updated: 05/23/2012 2:39 am
  

  93

  28

  16

  3,278

  Get Politics Alerts:

  Sign Up
  React:

  Important Funny Typical Scary Outrageous Amazing Innovative Finally
  Follow:

  Harry Reid , Mitch McConnell, Republican Party, Elections 2012, Video, Guy Cecil, Deb Fischer, Democrats 2012, Democrats Senate, Dscc, Dscc Guy Cecil, Indiana Senate, Nebraska Senate, Richard Mourdock, Senate 2012, Senate Campaign 2012, Senate Democrats, Photo Galleries, Super Pac, Super Pac Donors, Politics News
  
  WASHINGTON — The top Democrat in charge of protecting his party’s majority in the Senate thinks it can be done. But he’s deeply concerned his organization won’t have the money to do it.
  Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, figures the odds of preventing Mitch McConnell from taking Harry Reid’s gavel have improved over the last six months, to the point where he now says Democrats have a 50/50 shot at retaining the majority.
  But in a recent interview from his Capitol Hill office, Cecil offered his most explicit warning to date that the moneymen in the Democratic tent need to start writing checks.
  “The money,” Cecil told The Huffington Post, when asked what kept him up at night. “Our allies need to wake up. Our allies need to understand that the majority in the Senate is in danger and that everything from jobs and the economy and women’s health and Supreme Court justices, Wall Street reform — all the things that they have worked so hard for — will be for naught if we lose the Senate.”
  While Democratic Senate candidates have about $50 million more in the bank overall than their Republican counterparts, they have been outspent by a factor of nearly three to one — $29.1 million to $9.3 million — in the advertising wars, largely thanks to the outside groups and super PACs willing to spend unlimited amounts of money.
  According to data provided by a Democratic source familiar with ad buys, the biggest spender on Senate races has been the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has already pumped in more than $11 million for “issue” ads that benefit the GOP. After that come the Karl Rove-hatched groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, with at least $7 million. The group 60 Plus, billed as a conservative alternative to the AARP, has spent more than $4 million.
  The biggest spender on the Democratic side, meanwhile, has been the League of Conservation Voters, shelling out some $2.7 million, according to the source. The still-growing Majority PAC, a super PAC formed by Democratic operatives to sway Senate races, has been good for $1.7 million.
  “They need to — and we all need to — step up and make sure that our candidates have the resources they need, that we can push back on these super PACs, that we can make sure our side of the story is heard,” Cecil said. “I am confident that if we can close the gap financially, we will hold the Senate. But it’s also a big if.”
  Cecil points to recent electoral history to back up his claim. In the race he ran in 2010 — Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign against Tea Party-backed candidate Ken Buck — spending was close and Bennet won by just 1 percent. A similar dynamic characterized the races Reid, the Senate majority leader, won in Nevada and current DSCC Chairwoman Patty Murray won in Washington that year.
  “In the next three closest Senate races where we lost, we were drastically outspent — Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That’s not a coincidence,” Cecil said. “I think it’s instructive for this cycle that you have to be financially competitive if we’re going to hold the Senate. And if we’re not, then everybody is going to wake up on Nov. 7 and be incredibly disappointed with the results.”
  While 2008 and 2010 have been national wave elections, Cecil thinks this year’s campaign is taking place in what is overall a much more neutral political environment. For the Democratic party to emerge from that climate with the majority intact, he added, it would need to get the spending ratio down from that three-to-one margin to something more like three-to-two.
  One source of fundraising could, conceivably, be President Barack Obama’s campaign committee, which can make transfers to the DSCC. But Obama for America didn’t make those transfers in 2008 and Cecil gave no indication that he expected it to do so in 2012.
  “Every cycle we have gone through this, where at the beginning of the cycle all of these stories get written,” he said. “We are working very closely with OFA. We fully expect to work very closely with them, [and] we will see what they decide to do later on.”
  Democrats have raised the specter of devastating defeat in order to prompt more giving before. Most notably, the Obama campaign sent out a fundraising appeal several months ago highlighting a poll that showed the president trailing in his reelection effort. As they did in the wake of that email, Republicans responded to Cecil’s assessment with charges of disingenuousness.
  “Considering that just last week national Democrats were bragging that they had over $50 million more in the bank than Senate Republican candidates, their spin this week is interesting to say the least,” said National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Brian Walsh. “They must not think very highly of their donors’ intelligence because it’s clearly aimed at misleading liberal activists into opening up their pocketbooks.”
  Even Cecil’s predecessor, J.B. Poersch — who now runs the Senate-focused Majority PAC — felt that Cecil was overstating the risk of being drowned by Republican cash, though he insisted that his concern was a legitimate one.
  “I don’t think we will get buried under an avalanche,” Poersch said. “There is a system that allows for widespread undisclosed contributions that will favor the Republicans, which means they will have some kind of financial advantage.
  “Winter was a hard time for Democrats to compete on the third-party front. But things have picked up. We have been in five states … and there is more coming,” Poersch added. “The other side will spend more money than we will. And my hope is that Democrats and their donors recognize that we can’t let Republicans win in an environment that is beneficial to Democrats. We can’t lose races because of money.”
  So far, as Poersch noted, Democrats have been able to withstand the outside money disadvantage. Several of the top-flight races remain either relatively close or with the incumbent Democratic candidate ahead in the polls. Once those incumbent candidates begin spending the cash they had on hand, the margins will either solidify or widen, he predicted.
  Cecil, likewise, emphasized that Democratic candidates had an inherent advantage over conservative super PACs in that they were able to purchase ad time at lower rates, owing to benefits accrued under campaign finance law.
  But cash isn’t everything, he added. Democrats are benefiting from solid candidate recruitment, just as Republicans embrace more extreme candidates unlikely to attract support from moderates.
  Voters, Cecil predicted, will balk at the idea the Senate could go the way of the House, with Republican Senate candidates embracing Tea Party orthodoxy to win primaries. Specifically, he pointed to the recent GOP primary win by Indiana’s Richard Mourdock, who actively campaigned against the idea of bipartisan compromise, over six-term Sen. Dick Lugar.
  While Republicans insist they’ll be fine with right-wing candidates, Democrats view Mourdock as a gift. “Ultimately, the reason I believe [Democratic challenger Rep.] Joe Donnelly has a shot in Indiana is less about ideology and more about the fact that his opponent has simply said I will not work with any Democrat,” Cecil said. “We can’t function that way. It just does not work.”
  Even more recently, the surprise Senate primary win of Deb Fischer, a little-known state senator in Nebraska, was helped by the endorsement of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, underscoring the fortunate breaks Democrats feel they have received during the Republican primary cycle.
  “She was here right before you,” DSCC Communications Director Matt Canter said of Palin, jokingly portraying the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee as a Democratic mole. “The one o’clock hour.”
  Below, browse through a list of the most prominent super PAC donors:

  Donors Giving $500,000-Plus To Super PACs

  1 of 96

  

Source: wikipedia.org

Political action committee

A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation.^[1] At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.^[2] At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state’s election laws.

History of PACs in the United States

In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees, to which members could contribute.
In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, Amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation’s campaign finance laws. The FECA and the FEC’s rules provide for the following:

• Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs;
• Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union;
• Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families;
• Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising;
• Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members;
• Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

• $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
• $15,000 to a political party per year; and
• $5,000 to another PAC per year.
• PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited.^[3][4] Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC.^{[citation needed]}
See section Super PAC backlash

Categorization of PACs

Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected.

Connected PACs

Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are “connected PACs” established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a “restricted class,” generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations.^[5]

Non-connected PACs

Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form “non-connected PACs”. These organizations may accept funds from any individual, business PAC or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.^[5]

Super PACs

In 2010, a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise in 2010 of a new type of political action committee, popularly dubbed the “super PAC”. Officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees,” Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Also unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits.^[6]
As noted, Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.^[7]
According to Federal Election Commission advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiation that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.^[8][9]
Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates’ election campaigns in the Republican primaries.^[10] As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign—has spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million.^[6] Super PACs are often run or advised by a candidate’s former staff or associates^[11].
In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs has come not from corporations but from wealthy individuals^[10]. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised^[12], while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.^[13] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.^[14]
The term “Super PAC,” was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney, “the first to imbue [the term] with its current meaning of ‘political committees that may raise and spend unlimited money to independently support or oppose candidates.’”^[15] According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, “made the first identifiable, published reference to ‘super PAC’ as it’s known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers’ Voices, that it was a kind of ‘”super PAC” that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.’”^[16]

Leadership PACs

Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a Leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures. Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited.^[17]
Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs. Since current officeholders have an easier time attracting contributions, Leadership PACs are a way dominant parties can capture seats from other parties. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official’s own campaign. However, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses.^[18][19][20]
Between 2008 and 2009, leadership PACs raised and spent more than $47 million.^[21]

Controversial use of leadership PACs

• Former Rep. John Doolittle‘s (R) leadership PAC paid 15% to a firm that only employed his wife. Payouts to his wife’s firm were $68,630 in 2003 and 2004, and $224,000 in 2005 and 2006. The Doolittle home was raided on 2007.^[22] After years of investigation, the Justice Department dropped the case with no charges in June 2010.
• One Leadership PAC purchased $2,139 in gifts from Bose Corporation.^[23]
• Former Rep. Richard Pombo (R) used his leadership PAC to pay hotel bills ($22,896) and buy baseball tickets ($320) for donors.^[24]
• Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s (D) leadership PAC, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by federal election officials “for improperly accepting donations over federal limits.”^[25]

Disclosure Controversies

By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation.^[26] These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations,^[27].^[28]
Critics of PACs have claimed that the filing requirements allow PACs to postpone disclosure.^[29] In federal elections, PACs have the option to choose to file reports on a “monthly” or “quarterly” filing schedule.^[30][31]This means monies may be collected and spent long before the required filing date of a disclosure. Others have argued that Super PACs can accept donations from non-profit corporations whose members need not be disclosed, thus frustrating effective disclosure.^[32]
Many have argued that Super PACs, while meeting the requirements for legal independence, are often not truly independent of the candidates they support.^[33] Super PACs are often managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate’s immediate family.^[34] This in turn has led to considerable confusion about candidate control of PAC spending.^[35] For example the press referred to a filing by Restore Our Future, Inc, that listed 3 large donations by coworkers of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as being “Mitt Romney’s FEC filing”.^[36]
One organization, the National Organization for Marriage, operated two non-profit arms that received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded several different PACs and contested the release of names that gave to the non-profit.^[37] One former 2012 Presidential candidate, Fred Karger, maintained that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel money to candidates that are against the legalization of same-sex marriage.^[38] In Washington State in February 2012, the organization vowed to follow through on a commitment to spend $250,000 to help defeat the Republican state senators who voted for a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry should they seek office again.^[39]
Three Federal rulings defending State election laws were apparent setbacks for PACs trying to keep donor names private. On December 29th, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Family PAC, an organization that describes itself as “the leading pro-family, anti-tax” PAC.^[40] The Court confirmed that PACs must conform with State of Washington election laws and were required to disclose the names and addresses for anyone contributing over $25.^[41][42] The Court stated:
“The compelling State interest here is providing access to voters to information relevant to voting decision[s]….we do not agree with Family PAC’s contention that disclosure of small contributors does not provide information that enables the electorate to evaluate campaign messages and make informed decisions.”^[43]
On January 31, 2012, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals rule against the National Organization for Marriage‘s attempts to continue to keep their donor list secret. The group had also previously lost a challenge to the state’s political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.^[44][45] This court decision incorporated the “reasonable person in the circumstances,” which is generally deemed an objective test. If a reasonable person receiving a solicitation would construe the funds they contributed to be for the purpose of funding a campaign to pass or defeat a ballot measure, then they clearly come within the reporting and disclosure requirements. Thus, the court found that the statute is not sufficiently ambiguous to raise constitutional concerns.^[46]
On May 16, 2011, the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld Minnesota’s disclosure laws and ban on corporate contributions.^[47]
Despite losses such as these, PACs in some instances, were contesting previous rulings, and current state election law in the midst of the 2012 election. In Minnesota, Human Rights Campaign pressed for an advisory ruling regarding anonymous PAC spending from the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Commission. The group claimed the National Organization for Marriage was systematically attempting across the country to oppose public disclosure.^[48]

Super PAC Controversies

After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, and American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, there is no doubt that the formation of a super PAC and the acceptance of large contributions is legal. However, super PACs may not accept foreign funds or coordinate directly with a candidate. The question of coordination has been a controversial one, with some critics arguing that Super PACs are in fact coordinating activity with preferred candidates.^[49]
Presidential candidate Romney stated in August 2011 that his ability to benefit from large contributions via PACs from individual donors helps him to equalize the influence of corporations and unions that can pool small contributions from many employees or union members. Romney stated “My own view is I don’t like all the influence of money in politics, but I don’t have a solution that’s a lot better than saying let people contribute what they will, then report it, let people know who gave what to who.”^[50]
Jim Messina, President Obama’s campaign manager, stated: “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm”.^[51] According to press reports, in asking his top fundraisers to steer money to the main super PAC backing his reelection, Obama embraced a campaign vehicle he previously denounced.^[52]

James Bopp

Much of the credit for the legal framework for PACs and 527 organizations to accept unlimited amounts of money is given to Republican attorney James Bopp, Jr. He fought 30 years and filed 21 cases to eliminate limits on campaign spending, and to keep donor lists private. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. “It’s safe to say that groups on the left and right have Jim Bopp to thank for their new-found freedom.”^[53][54]

International comparison and response

The leading democracies have different systems of campaign finance, and several have no institutions analogous to American PACs, in that there are no private contributions of large sums of money to individual candidates. This is true, for example in Germany, in France, and in Britain. In these countries, concerns about the influence of campaign contributions on political decisions are less prominent in public discussion.^{[citation needed]}

2008 Election

In the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money spent by themselves, a total of $25,794,807 via their affiliates and subsidiaries as follows:

1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
2. AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
3. American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
4. National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
5. Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
6. International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
7. International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
8. American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
9. Laborers’ International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350

2012 Election (estimates)

As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.^[55]
The 2012 figures don’t include funds raised by State level PACs nor funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool “soft-funds”. Spending by non-profits, also called 527 organizations, exceeded $500 million in the 2010 election cycle with the two largest organizations being the Republican Governors Association $131,873,954 and the Democratic Governors Association $64,708,253 ^[56] Spending by the 527 organizations for the 2012 is expected to be double and much will be derived from donors kept hidden from voters.^[57]

See also

• 527 group
• Issue advocacy ads
• Lobbying in the United States
• Money loop
• Politics of the United States
• Soft money

References

External links

• Federal Election Commission
  • Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations
  • Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees
• Federal Judicial Branch
  • Ruling National Organization for Marriage versus McKee (Maine), United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
  • Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission
• OpenSecrets.org
• PoliticalMoneyLine

…and I am (Green) Harth@webworldismyoyster.com