• Comment (3)

'Super' PACs Set to Disclose Big Donors

Big donors revealed today

January 31, 2012 RSS Feed Print

WASHINGTON (AP) — Get ready to find out who the millionaires are behind this year's presidential election.

Shadowy outside groups funded by anonymous donors and working on behalf of candidates they support have pummeled Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and others for the past two months by spending millions of dollars on mostly negative TV ads that have had an enormous impact on the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

Now, for the first time since they started shaping this campaign in earnest, many of those "super" political action committees are set to disclose just who is financing their pseudo-campaign operations. Many took advantage of a change in federal rules that essentially let them shield their donors' identities until after key primary elections in January. But they still must submit their financial reports to the Federal Election Commission by Tuesday.

Only a handful of donors are known, including Las Vegas billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson. His two checks for $5 million apiece to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group, essentially kept the former House speaker's White House campaign afloat at critical junctures just before the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

Bain Capital executives and Romney friends have lined the bank accounts of the pro-Romney group Restore Our Future. Former Bain executive Edward Conrad donated $1 million last spring and Marriott International Inc. CEO J.W. Marriott Jr. gave the group $500,000, seed money spent to successfully hammer Gingrich in Iowa late last year as he started to rise.

That's when the super PACs sprang into action in full force.

Since then, groups working on behalf of Republican candidates for president have spent roughly $25 million in TV ads, most of which have been negative, in the first four states to vote in the GOP nomination battle — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

Of that, the pro-Romney Restore Our Future has spent about $14 million on ads, mostly to take down Gingrich in Iowa and Florida. That's more than the roughly $12 million Romney himself has spent on TV ads.

The super PACs have also unleashed millions on expenses typically reserved for campaigns, including direct mailings, phone calls and get-out-the-vote efforts.

It's a precursor to the general election, when super PACs aligned with both Republicans and President Barack Obama are planning to dole out even larger sums.

These groups are the products of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that stripped away old restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections. They can't directly coordinate with the candidates they support, but many are staffed with former campaign workers who have an intimate knowledge of their favored candidate's strategy.

Some donors will never be known because some super PACs have established not-for-profit arms that can shield contributors' identities. Those arms can spend more than roughly half of their money on so-called advocacy, although campaign-finance reformers have urged the Internal Revenue Service to reduce that share.

Super PACs like American Crossroads — backed by George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove — and its own nonprofit arm played a significant role in the 2010 midterm elections, helping deliver the House to the GOP and boost the number of Republicans in the Senate.

Tuesday's filings to the FEC won't just reveal many of the committees' financial backers; they'll also show how their money is being spent, particularly on infrastructure, payroll and travel. The same will be true in the campaign financial filings for President Barack Obama, Romney, Gingrich and others, who last released their finances in October 2011.

But, above all, the FEC filings are likely to show the awesome impact super PACs have in supplementing expansive, national campaigns.

Super PACs have become headaches for campaign-finance watchdogs, who have long warned of a potentially corruptive influence that hasn't been seen since the days of Watergate.

But some GOP-leaning groups say their ads contribute to a marketplace of ideas and counterbalance the huge sums of cash that Obama and the Democratic National Committee plan to spend on the president's re-election bid.

By law, presidential campaigns can raise, at most, $5,000 total from an individual donor.

But super PACs can solicit and spend unlimited money — and some employ affiliated groups, known as 501(c)4 organizations, whose donors are allowed to remain anonymous. Watchdog groups like Democracy 21 have complained to federal regulators on that front, asking the IRS to limit how much those nonprofit groups can spend on political advocacy.

 

Tags:
Associated Press

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

A Freechild of DC:

Amen!

ann keenan of MI 12:40AM February 02, 2012

I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions websites

Most people are not aware of the almost unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites

The site that has the best deals is saveonbuy cøm

I checked with the Better Business Bureau and was told that it is all legit How they can sell gift cards, laptops, cameras, and all kinds of goodies that we all want for 50-90% off, I don’t know. I do know that I bought my son an iPad there for less than $100 and my husband a $250 Low gift cards for $48.

Why would I even think about shopping anyplace else?

Marthana of CA 5:26AM February 01, 2012

How can we possibly expect our democracy to function when the influence of corporate funds overwhelm political campaigns? Should a single corporation be allowed to drown out the political will of thousands of individual voters?

As corporations look to wield influence and power, they seek to have politicians beholden to them. The easiest way for them to do so is through campaign financing. This creates an automatic conflict of interest if the candidate gets elected, putting corporate interests well above those of the common people. This undermines every aspect of our democracy.

Not only does corporate funding buy the allegiance of candidates to special corporate interests, but it also influences voters through funding of expensive and widely distributed advertisements.

Corporate money can pay for highly effective marketing strategies to manipulate public opinion in the political arena as they have previously done in the sales arena.

Expensive advertisements distort political discourse because they have no obligation to be factual or truthful. Moreover, the excessive funding is often used to buy airtime to repeat a message until it is perceived to be fact, essentially brainwashing people to chose a candidate the way that they might chose a dish detergent.

This type of private sector financing of campaigns undemocratically undermines debate and discussion. Even worse, it puts any candidate who eschews such funding at a distinct disadvantage.

Popular democracy is by the people, for the people. Representation is based on the size of a population, not on the size of their wallets. Yet a corporation can spend millions of dollars to defeat any candidate, even if most of their workers and shareholders support that candidate.

Ordinary Americans cannot compete with the virtually unlimited resources of corporations, especially as these corporations support politicians who will legislate in favor of the corporate interests and against the interests of ordinary citizens. This viscous cycle cannot be stopped from the inside, because the established insiders benefit from the current system and want to maintain it.

The Citizen’s United ruling of the Supreme Court only serves to magnify the damage that can be done by corporate spending on political campaigns. Sign the petition for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizen's United ruling (http://democracyisforpeople.org/).

We live in a society in which greater and greater sums of money are becoming amassed by corporations. As a result, these corporations have the ability to wield unlimited political influence, threatening to make us a democracy in name only.

A Freechild of DC 2:33PM January 31, 2012

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos