BUYING ELECTIONS - Single Donor Super PACS

"Rapid Rise in Super PACs Dominated by Single Donors" by Robert Faturechi and Jonathan Stray, ProPublica 4/20/2015

Super PACs that get nearly all of their money from one donor quadrupled their share of overall fund-raising in 2014.

The wealthiest Americans can fly on their own jets, live in gated compounds and watch movies in their own theaters.

More of them also are walling off their political contributions from other big and small players.

A growing number of political committees known as Super PACs have become instruments of single donors, according to a ProPublica analysis of federal records.  During the 2014 election cycle, $113 million – 16 percent of money raised by all super PACs – went to committees dominated by one donor.  That was quadruple their 2012 share.

The rise of single-donor groups is a new example of how changes in campaign finance law are giving outsized influence to a handful of funders.

The trend may continue into 2016.  Last week, National Review reported that Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination would be boosted not by one anointed Super PAC but four, each controlled by a single donor or donor family.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling helped usher in the era of super PACs.  Unlike traditional political action committees, the independent groups can accept donations of any dollar size as long as they don’t coordinate with the campaign of any candidate.  Previously, much of the focus in big-money fundraising was on “bundlers” -- volunteers who tap friends and associates for maximum individual contributions of $5,400 to a candidate, then deliver big lump sums directly to the campaigns.  Former president George W. Bush awarded his most prolific bundlers special titles such as “Ranger” and “Pioneer.”

While bundling intensified the impact of wealthy donors on campaigns, the dollar limits and the need to join with others diluted the influence of any one person.  With a Super PAC, a donor can single-handedly push a narrower agenda.  Last year, National Journal profiled one such donor – a California vineyard owner who helped start the trend by launching his own Super PAC and becoming a power player in a Senate race across the country.

Beyond the single-donor groups, big donations are dominant across all kinds of Super PACs, according to the analysis.  Six-figure contributions from individuals or organizations accounted for almost 50 percent of all Super PAC money raised during the last two cycles.

“We are anointing an aristocracy that’s getting a stronger and stronger grip on democracy,” said Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the influence of money on politics.

ProPublica’s analysis identified 59 Super PACs that received at least 80 percent of their funding from one individual during the 2014 cycle.  They raised a total of $113 million, compared with the $33 million raised by the 34 such groups that existed in 2012.

Donors who launch their own PACs are seeking more control over how their money is spent.  And many have complained about the commissions that fundraising consultants take off the top of their donations to outside groups.  But the move carries risks if the patron is new to the arena.

(see table at bottom)

In one cautionary tale, a reclusive 89-year-old Texas oilman with no political experience launched Vote2ReduceDebt, one of the nation’s highest-spending conservative Super PACs.  A ProPublica investigation found that much of the donor’s millions went to entities run by the group’s consultants or their close associates.  The Super PAC imploded as principals traded allegations including self-dealing, faked campaign events and a plot to siphon the PAC’s money to a reality TV show.

Bill Burton, a former Obama administration official who helped found Priorities USA, the juggernaut Super PAC affiliated with the president’s reelection campaign, said he expects donors to face more problems if they continue to go it alone.

“One of two things is going to happen,” he said.  “We will either see widespread flaunting of coordination rules or we will see some pretty spectacular failures to the tune of millions of dollars.”

The single-donor Super PACs identified by ProPublica span the political spectrum.  Among the top conservative donors were Richard Uihlein, a packaging supplies businessman, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.  Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spent heavily on both sides but leaned Democrat.  Hedge fund titan Tom Steyer dominated on the left.

In 2012 the largest single-donor Super PAC was former TD Ameritrade CEO Joe Ricketts’ Ending Spending Action Fund, which raised over $14 million, 89 percent of which came from Ricketts.  It was the ninth-largest Super PAC by spending.  In 2014 Steyer’s Nextgen Climate Action was the largest Super PAC, raising almost $78 million, 85 percent from Steyer.  (Steyer’s wife, Kat Taylor, is a member of ProPublica’s board of directors, and the couple has donated to ProPublica.)

In addition to the Super PACs dominated by a single individual, dozens more received the great majority of their funding from one corporation, labor group or advocacy organization.  In 2014, those PACs represented 8.6 percent of super-PAC fundraising.

PACs dominated by one donor could run afoul of disclosure laws, according to Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission.  Under the rules, political ads must include disclosures about who funded them.  Noble said election law would require groups funded by one person to list that donor’s name, not just the name of the PAC – though he couldn’t recall the FEC addressing such a case.

Naming the Super PAC instead of the donor in the ad, Noble said, also allows the groups to delay disclosing where their money comes from until the next FEC filing date – potentially weeks after the ad runs.

“It defeats the purpose of the law to allow someone to hide behind a Super PAC if they are the only funder,” Noble said.

“They want to make it more authoritative, like there’s more support.  It looks better to say the ad is from Americans for Good Government than from John Smith…  That just makes a mockery of the law.”

Top Single-Donor PACs in 2014

Super PAC	Largest Donor	Contributions Lean	$ raised from largest donor	% raised from largest donor
NextGen Climate Action Committee	Thomas Steyer	Democrat	$66,900,000	86%
Independence USA PAC	Michael Bloomberg	Democrat	$17,431,931	100%
Vote 2 Reduce Debt (V2RD)	Kenneth Davis Jr.	Republican	$2,892,526	97%
Values Are Vital	Ronald Firman	Republican	$2,148,300	80%
CE Action Committee	Thomas Steyer	Democrat	$1,825,000	92%
Liberty Principles PAC Inc*	Richard Uihlein	Republican	$1,780,000	100%
Americans For Progressive Action	Thomas Jordan	Republican	$1,700,000	100%
Americans For Common Sense (AFCS)	Angelo Tsakopoulos	Republican	$1,347,000	98%
American Principles Fund	Sean Fieler	Republican	$1,138,724	84%
CounterPAC	Jim Greer	Republican	$852,123	91%
Americas PAC	Richard Uihlein	Republican	$670,000	89%
New Hampshire Priorities	Peter Taul	Republican	$562,000	88%
American Alliance	Sheldon Adelson	Republican	$500,000	86%
Our America Fund	Richard Uihlein	Republican	$500,000	97%
Character Counts Political Action Committee	Gary Davis	Republican	$445,000	100%
Space PAC	Martine Rothblatt	Democrat	$425,000	99%
Kansans For Responsible Government	Willis Hartman	Republican	$285,100	97%
Protect The Harvest Political Action Committee	Forrest Lucas	Democrat	$250,000	94%
US Jobs Council	Robert Mercer	Republican	$200,000	91%
Spirit Of Democracy America	Charles Munger Jr.	Republican	$149,375	82%

* Uihlein provided virtually all funding eligible for federal races during the 2014 cycle.  Liberty Principles received significant contributions from other donors for state and local races in Illinois, which was the group's focus.

Source:  ProPublica analysis

POLITICS - Organizing for Action PAC

"Organizing For Action: Obama Campaign Relaunches As Issue-Based Nonprofit" by Paul Blumenthal, Huffington Post 1/18/2013

President Barack Obama may have run the last campaign of his career, but his political organization is not going away. In an unprecedented step for the campaign of a sitting president, Obama for America is relaunching itself ahead of the president's second inauguration as a social welfare nonprofit group called Organizing for Action.

First reported Thursday night by the Los Angeles Times and Politico, the new group will use the Obama campaign's extensive collection of data and manpower to push the president's agenda from outside the confines of the Democratic Party structure, while giving grassroots supporters a voice in deciding which issues the nonprofit will focus on.

Jim Messina, Obama's 2012 campaign manager and the chair of Organizing for Action, explained the relaunch in an e-mail to staffers and donors, "It will be a supporter-driven organization, as we've always been, staying true to our core principles: 'respect, empower, include.'"

"We'll work on the key battles of our generation, train the next generation of grassroots organizers and leaders, and organize around local issues in our own communities," Messina continued. "We'll continue to support the President in creating jobs and growing the economy from the middle out, and in fighting for issues like immigration reform, climate change, balanced deficit reduction, and reducing gun violence."

First Lady Michelle Obama emphasized the "supporter-driven" nature of the organization in a video posted online Friday.

"In terms of the specifics of what this organization is going to look like, a lot of that will be up to you," she said. "It will be determined by your energy and ideas and feedback because, after all, this is your movement. And going forward, it can be whatever you want to give it."

Messina will be joined at Organizing for Action by White House Director of the Office of Public Engagement Jon Carson, who will serve as the group's executive director.

As a social welfare nonprofit, organized under the 501(c)(4) section of the tax code, Organizing for Action will be able to raise unlimited sums of money from any type of donor, whether that be an individual, a union or a corporation.

These types of groups came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision enabled them to spend freely on elections, since they are not required to disclose their donors. In fact, the Obama reelection campaign in fundraising appeals routinely attacked the secret money that was funding the 501(c)(4) groups founded by Karl Rove and the billionaire Koch brothers.

According to multiple press reports, Organizing for Action has stated that it will disclose all of its donors, although it has not decided whether to disclose on a monthly or quarterly basis.

This brought praise from Public Campaign, a campaign finance watchdog that has criticized the activity of political nonprofits not disclosing their donors.

"Obviously there should be extra scrutiny for an organization like this because of its ties to a sitting president and that's why we welcome that they will disclose their donors," said Adam Smith, communications director at Public Campaign.

There is no precedent for the continuation of a sitting president's political operation after the campaign is done. After the 2008 election, Obama for America's operations were housed inside of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as Organizing for America, but the effort was barely noticeable during the push to pass health care reform or any other piece of the first term Obama agenda.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) transformed his failed 2004 presidential campaign into a political action committee (PAC) to help progressive candidates across the country. That organization, Democracy for America, still continues to raise money and organize with other progressive groups to elect like-minded candidates to the House and Senate.

The way that Organizing for Action is being introduced makes it look less like a political organization that will support or oppose candidates, like Democracy for America or the secret money nonprofits from Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity, and more like a traditional, issue-based social welfare group.

"It's important to note that there's a difference between creating a 501(c)(4) to advance a legislative agenda versus one like Crossroads that was created just to elect people," Smith said.

That difference appeared to be confirmed by DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse in a tweet about the relaunch announcement, "Organizing for Action is great news for progressive movement and Dem. Party allowing DNC to focus on elections, C4 on issues."

ELECTION 2012 - Super PAC "Liberty for All"

"Super PAC Founder: Keep Government Out of 'Bedroom and Bank Account'" by News Desk, PBS Newshour 8/28/2012

John Ramsey, the 22-year-old founder of the "Liberty for All" Super PAC, tells NewsHour correspondent Hari Sreenivasan his inspiration came from trying to get beyond "politics as usual" and "keeping government out of the bedroom and the bank account."

"Both parties are uniquely the same it seems like -- different rhetoric, of course -- but they both intrinsically grow the size of government, and that's against our values," Ramsey said Monday at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. The candidates his organization supports are more in tune with Texas Republican and presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, and he wants to remind people they have a choice besides the two mainstream parties.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's pick for a running mate, gets a lot of attention for his budget plan, said Ramsey, but it wouldn't do enough to cut government spending.

"We're $16 trillion in debt now," he said. "We've got to send people to D.C. who are serious about cutting and serious about the debt problem."

NOTE: "The devil is in the details," so what does this PAC actually MEAN by "out of Bedroom and Bank Account?" Also, there is the exaggerated claim of 'the American people want' as if this PAC speaks for all of us, which it does not.