By JACK GILLUM and STEPHEN BRAUN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — A once-mysterious $400,000 check written to a "super" political action committee supporting Mitt Romney's presidential campaign rekindled a nagging question this election season: Just how much disclosure is enough to satisfy transparency?
The Florida husband and wife behind the contribution were identified Monday as the beneficiaries of an investment fund and are among Romney's top Florida fundraisers. But up until then, the donation to the Restore Our Future super PAC — which reported the contribution from an unknown Florida firm called SeaSpray Partners LLC — left more questions than answers.
Inquiries about the donation intensified over the weekend after a Florida man who owned a similarly named company in Palm Beach told news organizations he never donated to the pro-Romney group. It turned out that Restore Our Future listed the wrong address for the actual SeaSpray donor.
The super PAC at first declined to disclose more about the mystery donors, but as the controversy grew, the committee on Monday acknowledged the Florida couple's role. Restore amended its federal filings Tuesday, naming the Florida couple as the two donors.
Welcome to the reality of recent federal rulings that have changed rules on how federal elections are financed. Those court cases, including the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United, gave a green light to corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of cash to support or defeat candidates.
The federal rulings upheld longstanding disclosure requirements, and super PACs that receive that cash still file periodic reports with the Federal Election Commission. But regulations require that only basic information about a company be reported; as such, SeaSpray's history and background effectively remained anonymous.
"Citizens United has not only allowed unlimited corporate spending, but has also opened many loopholes in disclosure laws," said Tara Malloy, associate legal counsel for the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center. "We see this when corporations give to transparent vehicles like a federal political committee. And this case underscores how porous the disclosure laws are."
An Associated Press review of financial documents found SeaSpray is, in fact, a financial fund managed by Boston-based Hellman Jordan Management. One of the firm's top executives, Gerald Jordan, and his wife, Darlene, received $200,000 apiece in unspecified "disbursements," company executive Susan Lynch told The Associated Press, and asked that the money be sent directly to Restore Our Future rather than to the couple's personal bank accounts.
"We were happy to do that," Lynch said. The amended report that Restore Our Future filed Tuesday confirmed that the Jordans had donated $200,000 apiece.
Restore Our Future acknowledged the Jordans' involvement Monday after the AP confirmed the couple's role and raised questions about their involvement with the group. Super PAC spokeswoman Brittany Gross attributed the mistake to a clerical error and said the super PAC would file an updated report with the Federal Election Commission.
But earlier, Restore Our Future said it would not identify the donors and would only update the firm's address, which it said met federal disclosure rules. That set the stage for a detective-worthy whodunit among news organizations and watchdog groups that follow the campaign closely.
The revelations about the $400,000 donation — and the super PAC's reluctance to identify such wealthy supporters — illustrate the loosened rules overseeing the federal campaign finance system in the wake of a series of court rulings in recent years. In the current presidential campaign, most donors identify themselves, but in some cases corporate donors are able to disguise their names using limited liability partnerships.