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
New Report On Secret Money and Super PACs in 2012 Election
The Top 5 "dark money" spenders on presidential election ads have reported less than 1% of their spending to the FEC, which is all that is required by the agency's insufficient standards, according to a new report analyzing the latest campaign filings.
WASHINGTON
The Top 5 "dark money" spenders on presidential election ads have reported less than 1% of their spending to the FEC, which is all that is required by the agency's insufficient standards, according to a new report analyzing the latest campaign filings.
>>>READ "MILLION-DOLLAR MEGAPHONES"
Today, national public policy organizations Demos and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) released "Million-Dollar Meaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections," which provides a detailed analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data and secondary sources on outside spending and Super PAC fundraising for 2012 election cycle.
This new report analyzed data through June 30th and reveals:
- Outside spending organizations, which work to influence elections in a way that is not legally "coordinated" with candidates, reported $167.5 million in spending to the FEC. Of this, $12.7 million (7.6% of the total) was "secret money" that cannot be traced back to an original source.
- But, because of gaps in reporting requirements, spending reported to the FEC is only part of the picture. When all types of outside spending on television ads related to the presidential race are taken into account, 50% the spending has been by "dark money" groups that do not disclose their donors.
- The Top 5 "dark money" groups spent $53.0 million on TV ads related to the presidential race alone through July 1, but reported only $420,920 in spending on all races through June 30th to the FEC. This means that these groups are currently reporting less than 1% of their spending.
- The Top 5 outside spending groups have accounted for 58.5% of all reported outside spending in the 2012 cycle.
- More than half (57.1%) of the $230 million raised by Super PACs from individuals came from just 47 people giving at least $1 million. Just over 1,000 donors (or 0.00035% of the population) giving $10,000 or more were responsible for 94% of this fundraising.
- Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have given a combined $36.3 million to Super PACs in the 2012 cycle. It would take more than 321,000 average American families donating an equivalent share of their wealth to match the Adelsons' giving.
"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."
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. We offer recommendations for every level of government to fight back against the Supreme Court's warped logic that is distorting our democracy."
Blair Bowie, Adam Lioz, Brenda Wright (Demos Vice President of Legal Strategies), and Liz Kennedy (Demos Counsel) are available for comment. Please see the contact information above.
Demos is a think tank that powers the movement for a just, inclusive, multiracial democracy. Through cutting-edge policy research, inspiring litigation, and deep relationships with grassroots organizations, Demos champions solutions that will create a democracy and economy rooted in racial equity.
LATEST NEWS
'Capitulation Index' Tracks How US Media Companies Are Responding to Trump Bullying
"This capitulation is... a pervasive trend that applies to nearly all commercial media, including cable and telecommunications firms and online platforms," said Free Press.
Jul 30, 2025
Media advocacy organization Free Press on Tuesday unveiled an index that documents and rates major media organizations' reactions to the coercive demands being made by U.S. President Donald Trump.
As Free Press explained in a press release, its Media Capitulation Index tracks actions being taken by 35 major media conglomerates who are facing pressure from Trump and his allies to curb critical reporting and commentary on his administration.
"In this investigation, Free Press found that to varying degrees the owners of America's largest media firms are caving to pressure from an authoritarian-minded president and his captured federal agencies," the organization wrote. "This capitulation is not unique to owners of news outlets—like Paramount (which owns CBS), Disney (ABC) and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN). Rather, it's a pervasive trend that applies to nearly all commercial media, including cable and telecommunications firms and online platforms."
Free Press argued that media companies have been bending to Trump's will through four major methods: Paying out lavish settlements in lawsuits brought by the president; rolling back their programs for enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion; pressuring journalists and commentators to soften or even censor their criticisms of the president; and "attempting to curry favor with the president during inaugural ceremonies, private dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and meetings in the White House."
The index uses a scale to rate media organizations that range from "independent" on one end to "propaganda" on the other. Of all the media companies surveyed by Free Press, only two are rated as independent: Bloomberg Media Group and Netflix. The New York Times Company for now is the least compromised of any print media conglomerate outside of Bloomberg and is merely listed as "vulnerable," while Nant Capital, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, is the most compromised and is rated as "obeying" the Trump administration.
When it comes to broadcast media, no companies earned an "independent" ranking, and CBS owner Paramount was ranked as "obeying" the Trump administration in the wake of its decisions to give Trump a $16 million payout and then cancel the show of longtime Trump critic Stephen Colbert.
Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, a longtime critic of the American media's response to Trump, praised Free Press on her Substack page for highlighting the major problems facing the American media in the second Trump term.
"Huge, diverse corporations own news companies, and independent journalism all too often takes a back seat to corporate profits, mergers, and other forms of consolidation," she said. "Meanwhile, public media has been defunded, local journalism lacks local ownership, and partisan propaganda has found an influential home on radio and cable news."
She also interviewed Tim Karr, who works as Free Press' senior director of strategy and communications, about why her former employer did not earn an "independent" rating on the index.
"There is a tendency to 'both-sides' reporting about the Trump administration,” Karr said of The New York Times' coverage, which he added seems to give "equal weight to the forces of democracy and the forces of authoritarianism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Highlights Threat Posed by 'Trump Health Cabal'
"Trump has nominated unqualified and dangerous people to serve in the most important health positions in the country," said Eagan Kemp, the author of the report for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
Jul 30, 2025
The government watchdog group Public Citizen published a report on Tuesday warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's "dangerous health cabal threatens patients, providers, and the programs they rely on."
The report, written by healthcare policy advocate Eagan Kemp, takes aim at several of Trump's appointees to top healthcare posts. Among those highlighted are Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) head Mehmet Oz, Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O'Neill, and surgeon general nominee Casey Means.
"The first few months of the Trump administration have brought chaos and disaster to an already fragmented and dysfunctional health care system," the report says. "From efforts to make massive cuts to the ACA and Medicare and layoffs of huge numbers of HHS staff across the agency, it is tough to keep up with all the damage being done."
Kennedy, the report says, has aggressively promoted "conspiracy theories and dangerous anti-science views" during his time as HHS secretary.
The report notes Kennedy's fear-mongering about the safety of the highly effective measles vaccine as the U.S. experienced the largest outbreak in recent years, and his purge of credentialed independent experts from the panel that makes national vaccine recommendations in favor of a clique of anti-vaccine activists.
The report also points to Kennedy's decision to de-emphasize research into infectious disease and prescription drugs and his mass firings at other agencies within HHS, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
"With Kennedy taking command of the HHS, Americans are presented lies and disinformation at an unprecedented scale that are capable of unwinding a century of progress on fighting disease and promoting public health," it says.
The report also ghlights Oz's efforts to further privatize Medicare by championing Medicare Advantage, which it says "would leave more Americans at the whim of greedy health insurance corporations." It cites one study, which found that since 2007, overpayments to private Medicare providers added up to more than $600 billion, and could amount to another trillion over the next decade.
Additionally, the report cites findings from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that patients with significant healthcare needs were more likely to drop Medicare Advantage in favor of returning to traditional Medicare, which it says "indicates that these patients were unable to receive necessary care" under the privatized program.
It describes Oz's "massive conflicts of interest," including his six-figure investments in Medicare Advantage providers like UnitedHealth and CVS Health.
"Medicare Advantage plans regularly deny needed care, making it difficult for low-resource hospitals to remain open to serve the public," the report says."If Oz gets his wish of further expanding Medicare Advantage, it will threaten the solvency of many hospitals, particularly rural hospitals currently at risk of closure, as they would struggle to keep their doors open because they wouldn't have the consistent funding they need to continue serving their communities."
O'Neill, who was appointed last month as Kennedy's deputy at HHS, is described as "a long-time venture capital investor with concerning views that reflect his significant financial ties to for-profit biomedical companies," adding that "his interests run counter to [HHS's] public health mandate."
The report notes O'Neill—a staunch libertarian—is opposed to FDA regulations to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs, which he said "kill a lot of people and provide a lot of harm to the economy."
He has called to eliminate the agency's mandate to ensure that drugs are effective before they are approved for sale. In a 2014 speech to a biotech group, O'Neill said the FDA should "let people start using them, at their own risk."
As an official in the George W. Bush administration's HHS, he also opposed FDA regulations on diagnostic tests that rely on computer algorithms—an even more pressing issue today given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence, including in healthcare.
"While he has a limited public record of comments on health issues broadly," the report says, "his dangerous and misinformed views about the workings of the FDA provide deep cause for concern that he will prioritize ideological and corporate profit considerations over the public health mandate of the department."
Means, Trump's pick for surgeon general—who would be the top authority on public health recommendations—is described as having "little to no managerial experience in the context of government agencies or scientific research."
She does not have an active medical license, and dropped out of her surgical residency. According to colleagues, she did so after coming to believe "that modern medicine is a conspiracy to keep people sick."
A "wellness influencer" in the mold of Kennedy, she has a history of anti-vaccine views and has advocated for getting rid of the Hepatitis B vaccination for babies, which is credited with reducing HBV infection by 68% over a decade after its introduction in 1991. Means has also said that birth control pills are overprescribed, and that they signal a "disrespect of life."
She also stands to potentially profit from her decisions as surgeon general, the report says, since she remains the chief medical officer of a glucose monitoring technology company and has not stepped down from her post despite the possible conflicts of interest.
"The range of unscientific ideas, wellness products, and conspiratorial claims that Means is associated with," the report says, "makes her a potentially dangerous person to serve in a role that requires being a credible health communicator for the country and upholding sound science."
The state of healthcare in the United States, the report says, is about to become more precarious following the passage of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which is projected to result in 10 million people losing their health insurance. Medicare privatization has also accelerated, with hiked rates for Medicare Advantage plans.
"The fact that Trump, Kennedy, and their allies have taken so many dangerous and misguided actions on health in just the early months of the new administration," the report says, "highlights the need for vigilance and strong pushback from anyone who wants a better healthcare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'These People Should Not Be Managing a Lemonade Stand': Trump Admin Throws NIH Funding Into Chaos
The administration paused National Institutes of Health research funding before reversing course hours later amid fierce backlash.
Jul 30, 2025
The White House budget office, led by far-right ideologue and Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, temporarily halted National Institutes of Health funding for scientific research on Tuesday before announcing that the pause was lifted hours later, sparking further chaos and confusion at a key agency that's under growing attack from the administration.
The pause, which would have impacted roughly $15 billion in funding for research institutions across the United States, was implemented due to a footnote from Vought's office "in a document that doles out federal funds" to the NIH, according to The Wall Street Journal.
News of the pause, which applied to research grants and contracts, sparked immediate outrage, with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) warning it underscored the administration's plan to "decimate lifesaving research in this country."
But the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have reversed course. The Washington Post reported that the agency "releas[ed] the funds later in the day." The Health and Human Services Department, which oversees NIH, pointed to an OMB spokesperson's statement that "the funds were released" after a "programmatic review."
"The chaos and dysfunction of the Trump administration is staggering," Murray said Tuesday. "These people should not be managing a lemonade stand, much less all federal cancer research."
The White House has proposed slashing the NIH's budget by 40% next fiscal year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said earlier this month that the Trump administration's proposed cuts would "ultimately decrease the number of new drugs coming to market."
Tuesday's pause added to the turmoil at an agency that has already faced mass firings and attempts to slash critical funding.
Over the weekend, Vought described the NIH as "an agency that needs dramatic overhaul." Mother Jones reported earlier this year that the NIH "funded research that helped scientists better understand cystic fibrosis, which led to Vertex Pharmaceuticals developing a cutting-edge treatment" that Vought's daughter benefited from.
The Trump administration's effort to slash NIH funding "means that research into rare diseases, already inadequate, may slow down," the outlet noted.
"Ninety-five percent of rare diseases, unlike cystic fibrosis, have no treatment, according to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, and most organizations lack the budget to fund drug research in partnership with pharmaceutical companies," Mother Jones added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular