EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Thursday, September 23, 2010 by OpenSecrets Blog
The Rise of 'Super PACs' Continues, Leaving Voters in Dark as Attack Ads Fill Airwaves
The proliferation of “super PACs” -- political organizations armed with the ability to raise unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals and corporations and to spend huge sums explicitly advocating for or against candidates -- continues at a staggering pace.
Thirty-three such committees have now registered their intention to raise unlimited sums for independent expenditures with the Federal Election Commission, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of FEC data.
High-level political operatives on both the left and the right have jumped into the fray, establishing these new “super PACs,” as OpenSecrets Blog has previously reported.
Two months ago, the FEC gave the official green light to special interest groups hoping to cash in on federal court rulings that loosened campaign finance rules.
On July 22, the FEC gave its blessing to the conservative Club for Growth and the liberal Commonsense Ten, allowing them, and other groups like them, to form “super PACs,” officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees.” These committees can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups. And with those massive war chests, they can run advertisements expressly advocating for or against federal candidates.
Some of these groups have yet to report raising a dime. Others have already raised millions of dollars -- and are spending hundreds of thousands in competitive races across the country. One thing is clear: New groups of this sort continue to register with the FEC, and their influence will be felt during the final weeks of the campaign. (See a full list of these organizations later in the story.)
In previous election cycles, groups that wanted to run ads that expressly advocated for or against candidates faced more severe fund-raising restrictions. It was illegal for a person to contribute more than $5,000 per year to a political committee. This cycle, however, several legal opinions have transformed the campaign finance landscape and erased previous rules.
Thirty-three such committees have now registered their intention to raise unlimited sums for independent expenditures with the Federal Election Commission, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of FEC data.
High-level political operatives on both the left and the right have jumped into the fray, establishing these new “super PACs,” as OpenSecrets Blog has previously reported.
Two months ago, the FEC gave the official green light to special interest groups hoping to cash in on federal court rulings that loosened campaign finance rules.
On July 22, the FEC gave its blessing to the conservative Club for Growth and the liberal Commonsense Ten, allowing them, and other groups like them, to form “super PACs,” officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees.” These committees can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups. And with those massive war chests, they can run advertisements expressly advocating for or against federal candidates.
Some of these groups have yet to report raising a dime. Others have already raised millions of dollars -- and are spending hundreds of thousands in competitive races across the country. One thing is clear: New groups of this sort continue to register with the FEC, and their influence will be felt during the final weeks of the campaign. (See a full list of these organizations later in the story.)
In previous election cycles, groups that wanted to run ads that expressly advocated for or against candidates faced more severe fund-raising restrictions. It was illegal for a person to contribute more than $5,000 per year to a political committee. This cycle, however, several legal opinions have transformed the campaign finance landscape and erased previous rules.
The Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned a century-old ban on corporate and union treasury funds being used in politics. While corporations and unions cannot make direct campaign contributions from their treasury funds, these monies can be used to fund advertisements that overtly encourage voters to elect or defeat federal candidates. (photo by Flickr user Tony.L.Wong)
The Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned a century-old ban on corporate and union treasury funds being used in politics. While corporations and unions cannot make direct campaign contributions from their treasury funds, these monies can be used to fund advertisements that overtly encourage voters to elect or defeat federal candidates.
Furthermore, in March, a federal court in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission ruled that the government’s cap on donations to political committees was unconstitutional -- so long as those groups don’t make direct contributions to candidates and don’t coordinate with candidates when running independent advertisements.
The following table lists all committees that intend to raise unlimited contributions through Sept. 20, including the date each group officially informed the FEC of their desire to raise unrestricted sums of money in accordance with the SpeechNow.org and Citizens United rulings.
Some of these organizations file monthly reports with the FEC, while others file quarterly. Only when such reports are filed do voters have a full accounting of the individuals, corporations and other groups funding the barrage of advertisements the groups are running. In many cases, disclosure of donors will not come until after Election Day.
Even with these seismic changes in the campaign finance landscape, some groups are still seeking to avoid any donor disclosure.
Several organizations -- such as Crossroads Grassroots Political Solutions, or Crossroads GPS, a sister organization of the top conservative independent expenditure-only committee American Crossroads -- have formed under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. tax code. This designation means the group’s donors will never be reported to the FEC or to the Internal Revenue Service and that its primary purpose is supposed to be the “promotion of social welfare.” Yet, so far, this designation hasn’t kept it from spending big bucks on political messages in hotly contested races.
Democrats have pushed for legislation, known as the DISCLOSE Act, which would require advertisements to include information about the top donors financing the ads. The measure also calls for the heads of organizations that run independent expenditures to appear in the ad to approve the message, like political candidates currently do.
That legislation passed the House earlier this summer. In July, Republicans successfully filibustered the bill in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring the bill up for another vote in the Senate on Thursday, although it’s unclear if any Republicans have undergone a change of heart.
Furthermore, in March, a federal court in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission ruled that the government’s cap on donations to political committees was unconstitutional -- so long as those groups don’t make direct contributions to candidates and don’t coordinate with candidates when running independent advertisements.
The following table lists all committees that intend to raise unlimited contributions through Sept. 20, including the date each group officially informed the FEC of their desire to raise unrestricted sums of money in accordance with the SpeechNow.org and Citizens United rulings.
| FEC ID # | Committee Name | IE-Only Letter Filed |
|---|---|---|
| C00484287 | AFL-CIO WORKERS VOICES PAC | 9/20/2010 |
| C00488940 | NEW HOUSE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE | 9/14/2010 |
| C00430876 | WORKING FOR US POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE INC | 9/10/2010 |
| C00488759 | AMERICAN WORKER INC, THE | 9/10/2010 |
| C00488742 | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CONGRESSIONAL FUND | 9/10/2010 |
| C00469890 | PATRIOT MAJORITY PAC | 9/9/2010 |
| C00488783 | SPEECHNOW.ORG | 9/9/2010 |
| C00473918 | WOMEN VOTE! | 9/8/2010 |
| C00488569 | COALITION TO PROTECT AMERICAN VALUES | 9/7/2010 |
| C00488494 | NEW PROSPERITY FOUNDATION; THE | 9/2/2010 |
| C00488502 | PROTECTING CHOICE IN CALIFORNIA 2010, A PROJECT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFF OF CALIFORNIA | 9/2/2010 |
| C00488429 | CITIZENS FOR STRENTH AND SECURITY PAC | 9/1/2010 |
| C00488437 | CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF AMERICA | 9/1/2010 |
| C00488403 | TEXAS TEA PARTY PATRIOTS PAC | 9/1/2010 |
| C00487470 | CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION | 8/31/2010 |
| C00488338 | AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION PAC INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE | 8/31/2010 |
| C00423467 | VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS FOR DEMOCRACY | 8/30/2010 |
| C00488486 | COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA WORKING VOICES | 8/30/2010 |
| C00483693 | SIERRA CLUB INDEPENDENT ACTION | 8/19/2010 |
| C00487785 | HEADQUARTERS CMTE W HOLLYWOOD/BEV HILLS/STONEWALL DEM CLUB/STONEWALL YOUNG DEMS LTD | 8/18/2010 |
| C00487744 | AMERICA'S FAMILIES FIRST ACTION FUND | 8/17/2010 |
| C00485854 | LOUISIANA TRUTH PAC | 8/11/2010 |
| C00486688 | FLORIDA IS NOT FOR SALE | 8/5/2010 |
| C00487280 | CONSERVATIVES FOR TRUTH | 8/2/2010 |
| C00486878 | PEOPLE'S MAJORITY | 8/2/2010 |
| C00486845 | LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS VICTORY FUND | 7/30/2010 |
| C00482620 | ARIZONANS WORKING TOGETHER | 7/28/2010 |
| C00487199 | CITIZENS FOR ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY | 7/28/2010 |
| C00484642 | COMMONSENSE TEN | 7/27/2010 |
| C00484295 | CALIFORNIANS FOR FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP | 7/23/2010 |
| C00485821 | AMERICANS FOR NEW LEADERSHIP | 7/9/2010 |
| C00487363 | AMERICAN CROSSROADS | 7/9/2010 |
| C00485011 | CLUB FOR GROWTH ADVOCACY INC | 6/17/2010 |
Some of these organizations file monthly reports with the FEC, while others file quarterly. Only when such reports are filed do voters have a full accounting of the individuals, corporations and other groups funding the barrage of advertisements the groups are running. In many cases, disclosure of donors will not come until after Election Day.
Even with these seismic changes in the campaign finance landscape, some groups are still seeking to avoid any donor disclosure.
Several organizations -- such as Crossroads Grassroots Political Solutions, or Crossroads GPS, a sister organization of the top conservative independent expenditure-only committee American Crossroads -- have formed under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. tax code. This designation means the group’s donors will never be reported to the FEC or to the Internal Revenue Service and that its primary purpose is supposed to be the “promotion of social welfare.” Yet, so far, this designation hasn’t kept it from spending big bucks on political messages in hotly contested races.
Democrats have pushed for legislation, known as the DISCLOSE Act, which would require advertisements to include information about the top donors financing the ads. The measure also calls for the heads of organizations that run independent expenditures to appear in the ad to approve the message, like political candidates currently do.
That legislation passed the House earlier this summer. In July, Republicans successfully filibustered the bill in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring the bill up for another vote in the Senate on Thursday, although it’s unclear if any Republicans have undergone a change of heart.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show AllRemember, for Reid filibuster means someone's undocumented housekeeper told some staff member's wife that a Republican Senator mentioned Filibuster while talking in his sleep.
This morning's israeli war crimes article seems to have been shuffled away to oblivion fairly quickly.
Most of these PACS listed operate under Orwellian cover; would like to know where each get their money (i.e. billionnaire Koch brothers) and what their SPECIFIC AGENDA/PLATFORM is.
The names are often deceptive and can actually mean the opposite.
Most likely that is the case since I don't see AIG listed in there or BP or any of the biggest lobbyists. This list ain't real or at least not a real reflection of the truth.
Why must this commenter insist on artificially insisting an equivalence between "left" and right" on this issue?
If one clicks on the link to the supposed super PAC "on the left", it leads to an article on a PAC run by a "trial lawyers association" (aka "ambulance chasers"). I do not consider trial lawyers to be in any way "left".
Apparrently he wasn't able to find a super PAC run by something with even slight left credentials like the AFL-CIO or such.
So, I think we can assume, if for no other reason than sheer marginalization, that there are NO super PACs working for the genuine "left".
I wholly agree with your concluding assumption, but since you brought up the AFL-CIO, didn't you notice the very first item on the list?
C00484287 AFL-CIO WORKERS VOICES PAC 9/20/2010
Yeah, orgainzed just three days ago.
At any rate, the money held by the AFC-CIO Pac is miniscule comapred to the of the wealthy conservative PACs, so stating that hter is an equvalance betwen left and right is still doesn reflect reality.
Interesting that the author attempts such a false equivalence. Let's just tell it like it is: these are vested interests spending money to ensure that their backers are elected to government so that they continue enriching themselves. Whether they are trial lawyers, bankers or corporate CEOs, these people are spending money on influencing elections to ensure that public policy continues to benefit them so that they can continue making lots of money, simple as that.
I immediately mute every ad on TV on those rare occasions I watch TV containing commercials. And I insist upon this when I visit friends. If a sports bar has the sound on, I don't stay. The same goes for the radio while driving; I switch to another station or play a CD or tape. Advertisements assault my senses, and once folks learn to enjoy the quiet interlude when the TV's muted, they become aggressive muters, worthy of monitoring the remote.
Agreed. I've actually had to stop watching most TV since I tend to miss the first 30 seconds after commercials before I turn from my pc and notice the show is back on. That only leaves a few minutes before there are more commercials, so what's the point? The exceptions being True Blood, Breaking Bad and Madmen for which no sacrifice is too great! ;)
Note too how the volume jacks up during commercials, and note how they use lots of animated graphics, lots of "happy" noise, fast cuts, etc. The ideal brainwashing techniques you can find in any advertsising 101 textbook.
I threw away my TV set because 99% of programming is junk, banal, and vulgar. I once had cable (many years ago). When I complained that I didn't want to pay for all those obnoxious shopping channels I had to surf through, their response: "oh you're not paying for that, we offer that valuable service to all our customers." Bullshit. I replied that they should be paying ME if they were going to subject me to that kind of consumerist propaganda (same goes for wall-to-wall infomercials evangelizing the glorious get-rich-quick-no-down-payment gospel of capitalism). Also, these cable companies get a cut on the shopping channel end from QVC, etc. When I wish to see good programming, I buy or rent the DVD, watch PBS online (when available), listen to good books, to cultured, deeply intelligent European programming; in short I prefer quality nourishment to junk food.
Con game nation, anyone?
I've droned on about this repeatedly, so one more time can't hurt.
On the one hand, every day I read political analysis and opinion in web articles and comments threads here and elsewhere. Except for trolls and earnest half-wits, there's a lot of thoughtful, sophisticated intellectual striving out there.
On the other hand, I can't avoid seeing typical local political ads on teevee (and hearing them on AM radio). Sometimes the mute button isn't handy, or I'm in the middle of writing something and can't be bothered stopping to turn off the offending blather.
And it's one garish, tacky, Fun for the Feeble-Minded melodrama after the other. Even without the sound on, one can tell which candidate is being touted by just looking at the images.
For instance, if it's a grainy, high-contrast black-and-white still of a scowling Joe Sestak, it's a Toomey ad. But if it's a smiling, Technicolor Sestak surrounded by his loving family, it's a Sestak ad. And vice-versa, ad nauseam.
If the narrator has a harsh and guttural tone, it's an "attack ad". And the content of the narration is always the same broth of dopey, dumbed-down, bumper-sticker slogans.
Even the most "high-minded", "positive" of the lot are exercises in cant and hypocrisy, with manipulative glurge substituted for manipulative bile.
This is a billion-dollar business, so obviously these ads are considered influential and indispensible.
But I always wonder just which dementia-addled, slack-jawed, lizard-brained citizens take these ads at face value. Then I wonder how anyone could mistake this Through-the-Looking-Glass Election Quadrille for a sober, rational enterprise.
"But I always wonder just which dementia-addled, slack-jawed, lizard-brained citizens take these ads at face value."
The same can be said for any advertisement on television, can it not? It's always the same formulaic advertising, whether they are selling politicians, baby formula or tooth paste. The methods of selling are based on fear and misinformation. Haven't you ever watched late-night infomercials? Well, believe it or not, people buy that crap, that's why businesses pay big bucks for those time slots.
This is what the Supreme Court considers "freedom of speech." The right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on misleading, slanderous advertising that does nothing to inform the electorate. This is exactly why that Citizens United ruling contradicted the very essence of the First Amendment, which was intended to ensure an informed electorate, not a brainwashed and confused electorate.
"The same can be said for any advertisement on television, can it not?"
_____________________
Yes indeed, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The ads for smartphones, bundled telephone/cable/Internet services, and Big Pharma snake-oil remedies are particularly obscene.
How does one send a private comment only to the poster?
Please advise through the back door, if that is possible or via my secure email address at Take back our democracy at http://www.eduardhiebert.com/ereform/v123p.htm
Eduard
I think it may all end up to be self defeating. Already, with all the political advertisements during the news hour, I can't keep track of who to vote against!