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.
(Photo: Pakhnyushcha /Shutterstock)
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."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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."