SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Bus tour by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by the Koch family
(credit Chuck Quirmbach/WPR via Flickr)
Beyond Super PACs: Nonprofit Millions Flooding Elections
Aug 19, 2012
While super PACs have received plenty of attention since the Citizens United ruling for flooding money into elections, a new investigative report shows how social welfare groups known as 501(c)(4)s "are pouring much of their resources" into elections.
The report released Sunday from Kim Barker of ProPublica, How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare details how nonprofit groups known as 501(c)(4)s are outspending all TV advertising in the presidential race -- surpassing that of super PACs.
These nonprofit groups, such as the Republican Jewish Coaltion or Americans for Prosperity, get tax exempt status "for the promotion of social welfare," but
[ProPublica's] examination shows that dozens of these groups do little or nothing to justify the subsidies they receive from taxpayers. Instead, they are pouring much of their resources, directly or indirectly, into political races at the local, state and federal level.
The 2010 election functioned, effectively, as a dry run, providing a blueprint for what social welfare groups are doing on a larger scale today.
While super PACs must disclose their donors, donors to the 501(c)(4) groups remain behind a veil of secrecy. "Like super PACs, they can rake in unlimited contributions, support and oppose candidates, and buy ads right up until Election Day. But unlike super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors," writes Barker.
Barker also explains how the Citizens United ruling helped foster this situation:
Previously, laws had barred nonprofits from accepting donations from corporations or unions for political purposes and had mostly restricted 501(c)(4)s to generic "issue" ads that stopped short of calling on people to vote for or against candidates.
Citizens United dismantled this system. In a 5-4 decision, the high court said corporations and unions enjoyed the free speech rights of any individual. They could spend directly on political ads or give unlimited amounts of money to nonprofits for political activities. Over the next two years, contributions to existing social welfare nonprofits skyrocketed and new ones geared specifically toward elections were formed.
"It really sounded the starting gun for the creation of nonprofits that were strictly political in nature," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.
Click here to read the full story.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
While super PACs have received plenty of attention since the Citizens United ruling for flooding money into elections, a new investigative report shows how social welfare groups known as 501(c)(4)s "are pouring much of their resources" into elections.
The report released Sunday from Kim Barker of ProPublica, How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare details how nonprofit groups known as 501(c)(4)s are outspending all TV advertising in the presidential race -- surpassing that of super PACs.
These nonprofit groups, such as the Republican Jewish Coaltion or Americans for Prosperity, get tax exempt status "for the promotion of social welfare," but
[ProPublica's] examination shows that dozens of these groups do little or nothing to justify the subsidies they receive from taxpayers. Instead, they are pouring much of their resources, directly or indirectly, into political races at the local, state and federal level.
The 2010 election functioned, effectively, as a dry run, providing a blueprint for what social welfare groups are doing on a larger scale today.
While super PACs must disclose their donors, donors to the 501(c)(4) groups remain behind a veil of secrecy. "Like super PACs, they can rake in unlimited contributions, support and oppose candidates, and buy ads right up until Election Day. But unlike super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors," writes Barker.
Barker also explains how the Citizens United ruling helped foster this situation:
Previously, laws had barred nonprofits from accepting donations from corporations or unions for political purposes and had mostly restricted 501(c)(4)s to generic "issue" ads that stopped short of calling on people to vote for or against candidates.
Citizens United dismantled this system. In a 5-4 decision, the high court said corporations and unions enjoyed the free speech rights of any individual. They could spend directly on political ads or give unlimited amounts of money to nonprofits for political activities. Over the next two years, contributions to existing social welfare nonprofits skyrocketed and new ones geared specifically toward elections were formed.
"It really sounded the starting gun for the creation of nonprofits that were strictly political in nature," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.
Click here to read the full story.
While super PACs have received plenty of attention since the Citizens United ruling for flooding money into elections, a new investigative report shows how social welfare groups known as 501(c)(4)s "are pouring much of their resources" into elections.
The report released Sunday from Kim Barker of ProPublica, How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare details how nonprofit groups known as 501(c)(4)s are outspending all TV advertising in the presidential race -- surpassing that of super PACs.
These nonprofit groups, such as the Republican Jewish Coaltion or Americans for Prosperity, get tax exempt status "for the promotion of social welfare," but
[ProPublica's] examination shows that dozens of these groups do little or nothing to justify the subsidies they receive from taxpayers. Instead, they are pouring much of their resources, directly or indirectly, into political races at the local, state and federal level.
The 2010 election functioned, effectively, as a dry run, providing a blueprint for what social welfare groups are doing on a larger scale today.
While super PACs must disclose their donors, donors to the 501(c)(4) groups remain behind a veil of secrecy. "Like super PACs, they can rake in unlimited contributions, support and oppose candidates, and buy ads right up until Election Day. But unlike super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors," writes Barker.
Barker also explains how the Citizens United ruling helped foster this situation:
Previously, laws had barred nonprofits from accepting donations from corporations or unions for political purposes and had mostly restricted 501(c)(4)s to generic "issue" ads that stopped short of calling on people to vote for or against candidates.
Citizens United dismantled this system. In a 5-4 decision, the high court said corporations and unions enjoyed the free speech rights of any individual. They could spend directly on political ads or give unlimited amounts of money to nonprofits for political activities. Over the next two years, contributions to existing social welfare nonprofits skyrocketed and new ones geared specifically toward elections were formed.
"It really sounded the starting gun for the creation of nonprofits that were strictly political in nature," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.
Click here to read the full story.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.