Bus tour by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by the Koch family
(credit Chuck Quirmbach/WPR via Flickr)
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.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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.
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.
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.