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."
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 |
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."