

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The top five outside spending groups on presidential election ads have reported less than 1% of their spending to the Federal Election Commission, according to a new report by national research and advocacy organizations Demos and US PIRG. Multiple types of outside spending groups are playing an even larger and more secretive role in the 2012 election cycle than previously thought or estimated.
The report titled Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections reveals that beyond Super PACs, other, less transparent, forms of outside spending are becoming increasingly dominant.
Nonprofit "social welfare" organizations, or "dark money" groups, exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and trade or membership associations organized under Section 501(c)(6) are permitted to spend money to influence federal, state, and local elections like Super PACs, but are not required to disclose the identities of their donors or the amounts of their contributions, according to the report.
Super PACs no longer have a monopoly on outside political spending and are even outspent by these more advanced and secretive forms of political marketing.
"For all their problems, Super PACs have one significant virtue: transparency. They are required to report all of their spending on a real-time basis and all of their donors monthly or quarterly to the Federal Election Commission," the report states. On the contrary, 501(c)(4) "dark money" groups, which also utilize unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and institutions for political marketing, are not required to disclose donor names or donation amounts due to a gap in FEC regulations.
"Dark money" groups actually outspent Super PACs in the 2010 cycle by a substantial margin and are set to have an even greater effect on this year's elections, according to the report, which pooled data from the FEC and secondary sources.
The report finds:
The report finds that the combined spending of Super PACs, "dark money" groups, and other forms of outside political spending is far greater and more secretive than imagined.
According to report co-author Blair Bowie, Democracy Advocate at U.S. PIRG, "Our analysis in 'Million-Dollar Megaphones' shows clearly that unlimited, corporate, and secret money continues to undermine the principle of 'one person, one vote,' and yet our findings are only the tip of the iceberg."
"Today's outside spending groups act as megaphones for moguls and millionaires," said Adam Lioz, Counsel for Demos and report co-author. "The more money they pump in, the louder they're able to amplify their voices--until a few wealthy individuals and interests are dominating our public square, drowning out the middle and working classes."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The top five outside spending groups on presidential election ads have reported less than 1% of their spending to the Federal Election Commission, according to a new report by national research and advocacy organizations Demos and US PIRG. Multiple types of outside spending groups are playing an even larger and more secretive role in the 2012 election cycle than previously thought or estimated.
The report titled Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections reveals that beyond Super PACs, other, less transparent, forms of outside spending are becoming increasingly dominant.
Nonprofit "social welfare" organizations, or "dark money" groups, exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and trade or membership associations organized under Section 501(c)(6) are permitted to spend money to influence federal, state, and local elections like Super PACs, but are not required to disclose the identities of their donors or the amounts of their contributions, according to the report.
Super PACs no longer have a monopoly on outside political spending and are even outspent by these more advanced and secretive forms of political marketing.
"For all their problems, Super PACs have one significant virtue: transparency. They are required to report all of their spending on a real-time basis and all of their donors monthly or quarterly to the Federal Election Commission," the report states. On the contrary, 501(c)(4) "dark money" groups, which also utilize unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and institutions for political marketing, are not required to disclose donor names or donation amounts due to a gap in FEC regulations.
"Dark money" groups actually outspent Super PACs in the 2010 cycle by a substantial margin and are set to have an even greater effect on this year's elections, according to the report, which pooled data from the FEC and secondary sources.
The report finds:
The report finds that the combined spending of Super PACs, "dark money" groups, and other forms of outside political spending is far greater and more secretive than imagined.
According to report co-author Blair Bowie, Democracy Advocate at U.S. PIRG, "Our analysis in 'Million-Dollar Megaphones' shows clearly that unlimited, corporate, and secret money continues to undermine the principle of 'one person, one vote,' and yet our findings are only the tip of the iceberg."
"Today's outside spending groups act as megaphones for moguls and millionaires," said Adam Lioz, Counsel for Demos and report co-author. "The more money they pump in, the louder they're able to amplify their voices--until a few wealthy individuals and interests are dominating our public square, drowning out the middle and working classes."
The top five outside spending groups on presidential election ads have reported less than 1% of their spending to the Federal Election Commission, according to a new report by national research and advocacy organizations Demos and US PIRG. Multiple types of outside spending groups are playing an even larger and more secretive role in the 2012 election cycle than previously thought or estimated.
The report titled Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections reveals that beyond Super PACs, other, less transparent, forms of outside spending are becoming increasingly dominant.
Nonprofit "social welfare" organizations, or "dark money" groups, exempt from taxes under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and trade or membership associations organized under Section 501(c)(6) are permitted to spend money to influence federal, state, and local elections like Super PACs, but are not required to disclose the identities of their donors or the amounts of their contributions, according to the report.
Super PACs no longer have a monopoly on outside political spending and are even outspent by these more advanced and secretive forms of political marketing.
"For all their problems, Super PACs have one significant virtue: transparency. They are required to report all of their spending on a real-time basis and all of their donors monthly or quarterly to the Federal Election Commission," the report states. On the contrary, 501(c)(4) "dark money" groups, which also utilize unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and institutions for political marketing, are not required to disclose donor names or donation amounts due to a gap in FEC regulations.
"Dark money" groups actually outspent Super PACs in the 2010 cycle by a substantial margin and are set to have an even greater effect on this year's elections, according to the report, which pooled data from the FEC and secondary sources.
The report finds:
The report finds that the combined spending of Super PACs, "dark money" groups, and other forms of outside political spending is far greater and more secretive than imagined.
According to report co-author Blair Bowie, Democracy Advocate at U.S. PIRG, "Our analysis in 'Million-Dollar Megaphones' shows clearly that unlimited, corporate, and secret money continues to undermine the principle of 'one person, one vote,' and yet our findings are only the tip of the iceberg."
"Today's outside spending groups act as megaphones for moguls and millionaires," said Adam Lioz, Counsel for Demos and report co-author. "The more money they pump in, the louder they're able to amplify their voices--until a few wealthy individuals and interests are dominating our public square, drowning out the middle and working classes."