Pro Publica: Super PAC and nonprofit election spending is WAY up

[Winehole23]

FEC Data Show Big Jump in Spending by Super PACs and Outside Groups

http://www.propublica.org/images/ngen/gypsy_big_image/gt_stacking_my_cash_640-104785780.jpg (Photo by Robert George Young/Getty Images)
by Marian Wang (http://www.propublica.org/site/author/marian_wang/)
ProPublica, Nov. 9, 2011, 2:26 p.m.



As we reported earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission, which regulates the flow of political cash, has been plagued by persistent gridlock (http://www.propublica.org/article/as-political-donors-push-envelope-fec-gridlock-gives-de-facto-green-light) on some key areas of campaign finance.



Why’s that important? Because, as we explain, more money is coming in and much of it is flowing in through new and barely regulated groups.

Take a look at these graphs — found in a report (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/FEC_Joint_Statement-Nov3.pdf) [PDF] recently posted by the commission — that shine a spotlight on independent spending, or spending that’s technically not coordinated with candidates and their campaigns:
http://www.propublica.org/images/fec-superpac-graph-1.png
What’s striking here is that independent spending by “PACs, Groups and Individuals” more than quadrupled. Similar spending by parties stayed roughly the same. The data, compiled by the commission, are just another indication that the significance of traditional party committees (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67046.html) is shrinking in the rapidly changing campaign-finance landscape, eclipsed by new groups that can take in unlimited amounts to fund ads. (The other category in the chart, “electioneering communications,” represents what are known as “issue ads” that don’t explicitly endorse or oppose candidates. Spending on those ads stayed at about $80 million, compared to its 2008 level.)


Another FEC graph breaks down spending a little further. Setting aside the party committees that cut back on their independent spending in 2010, it shows that while traditional PACs have increased their independent spending somewhat, a more substantial increase came from other groups and the rise of Super PACs (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012), which started forming in 2010 after several court rulings opened the door to unlimited corporate and union donations.
http://www.propublica.org/images/fec-superpac-graph-2.png
Super PACs, as we’ve noted (http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/super-pacs-propublicas-guide-to-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance), can take unlimited donations so long as they’re not coordinating their spending with campaigns. Though these groups have grown in number and influence since the last election cycle, the FEC has yet to issue any rules that specifically address them and has only issued advisory opinions (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100722OpenMtng.shtml) — which don't have the force of law or regulation — giving guidance on what they’re allowed to do.


Individual donors and other groups — nonprofit 501(c)s ranging from unions to so-called social welfare groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS — can also make independent, noncoordinated expenditures. They took full advantage of this last cycle, spending more than $70 million.


Campaign-finance watchers estimate that independent spending in the 2012 cycle will blow away what was seen in 2010, especially since it’s also a presidential election year. If the FEC’s data are any indication, the Super PACs and other nonprofit groups will be the ones to watch.
http://www.propublica.org/article/fec-data-show-rise-of-super-pacs-and-outside-spending

[greyforest]

0 replies. Sorry bro, everyone here is too uneducated to understand why this is outrageous.

[boutons_deux]

And you people think I'm cynical! :lol

Some background about how the VRWC has packed and perverted the legal system to protect and enrich itself, with the insane travesty of a ruling that insults and ridicules Human-Americans' mythical sense of what America is, ie, the Citizens United decision.

Bought Justice and The Supreme Court



http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8256-bought-justi

[greyforest]

Anyone who's been watching Colbert Report this season knows plenty about SuperPACs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbert_Super_PAC

[Spurminator]

I can't believe anyone would be okay with any of this if they knew about it.

[greyforest]

I can't believe anyone would be okay with any of this if they knew about it.

The people that are okay with it are the people who use the system to leverage their interests to the government.

Money is vastly more important to any political cause than is public opinion or voting.

[scott]

Do Super PACs ever have to report what they've raised and what they are spending?

[Wild Cobra]

How are they different in impact that organizations like Move-On?

[greyforest]

Do Super PACs ever have to report what they've raised and what they are spending?


How are they different in impact that organizations like Move-On?


On September 29, Colbert consulted his lawyer and they set up his own 501(c)(4) organization, similar to American Crossroads.[10] Colbert will serve as president, secretary, and treasurer of his new organization and its stated purpose will be to educate the public.[10] However, the organization may legally donate to his Super PAC, lobby for legislation, and participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as campaigning is not the organization's primary purpose. Colbert's organization may legally accept unlimited funds which may be donated by anonymous donors. Since the Federal Election Commission doesn't require full disclosure, Colbert likens his 501 (c)(4) to a "Campaign finance glory hole": "You stick your money in the hole, the other person accepts your donation, and because it's happening anonymously, no one feels dirty!"

[scott]

Thanks. I am curious about disclosure mostly because I'm curious how much money Colbert can raise.

[Wild Cobra]

I read that already Grey.

[Winehole23]

Do Super PACs ever have to report what they've raised and what they are spending?The FEC isn't enforcing disclosure requirements even though they were upheld in Citizen's United, so basically, no.

[Winehole23]

How are they different in impact that organizations like Move-On?The difference is that now they can spend unlimitedly and (for the most part) without donor disclosure. Like Mark Hanna once said, there are three important things in politics. Money, money and I forget what the third thing is. We no longer have the right to know who's trying to influence elections or to limit that influence.

[101A]

From second strip was from yesterday's Sunday Comics (ironically the only section of my paper that gets it:

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/25ff5cc0a1c9012e2f8200163e41dd5b

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/81839240d937012e2fad00163e41dd5b

[greyforest]

The difference is that now they can spend unlimitedly and (for the most part) without donor disclosure. Like Mark Hanna once said, there are three important things in politics. Money, money and I forget what the third thing is. We no longer have the right to know who's trying to influence elections or to limit that influence.

Yeah I already explained that with this quote:


Colbert's organization may legally accept unlimited funds which may be donated by anonymous donors.

WC just didn't get it.

[boutons_deux]

Super PAC Man Gobbles Up Regulators’ Time, Patience

In the peculiar post-Citizens United world of political money, Josue Larose has assumed a new alter-ego: Super PAC man.

Since the Supreme Court ruling paved the way for groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates, 240 so-called Super PACs have registered with the Federal Election Commission. Larose -- purported millionaire, alleged economist and general man of mystery -- has formed 60 of them, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.

Among Larose's creations, all registered as Super PACs last month: the Bloomingdale's Department Store Customers Super PAC, the NFL Sport Players Super PAC, the United Nations Diplomats Super PAC, the Yale University Graduates Super PAC, the IRS Employees Super PAC, and the Costco Store Customers Super PAC.

His intentions in manufacturing these committees are unclear. The 30-year-old from Deerfield Beach, Fla., doesn't appear to have raised or spent a single dollar for his federal political committees, at least in the past three years. Larose, who's also won some attention for his Super PACs from the Sunlight Foundation, didn't respond to calls or emails from ProPublica.

But his actions show how easy it is to form Super PACs, which, unlike conventional PACs, can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals and corporations and make unlimited expenditures on behalf of candidates, as long as they don't donate to candidates directly and don't coordinate with candidates or political parties. Larose's moves also highlight the lack of rules governing Super PACs. The FEC has issued general guidance on how to form a Super PAC, but the six commissioners have so far done little to restrict what a Super PAC can do.

http://www.propublica.org/article/super-pac-man-gobbles-up-regulators-time-patience

[Winehole23]

The century-old ban on corporate donations to federal political campaigns should be junked as unconstitutional, the Republican National Committee argued in a legal brief filed Tuesday that could lead to new attacks on the GOP as beholden to corporate money.



The GOP brief filed with a federal appeals court contends that the ban which became law back in 1908 violates the First Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, including the 2010 Citizens United decision which allowed unlimited donations to independent-expenditure groups.


Republican National Committee Chief Counsel John R. Phillippe, Jr., and RNC lawyer Gary Lawkowski contend that the only legitimate rationale for the corporate donation ban now is to prevent an end-run around individual donation limits and that's not an adequate basis to uphold the ban.


"The complete ban both is over-inclusive to this aim and artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees. It is over-inclusive because it bans all corporate donations without regard to the ability of corporate donors to attribute their donations to individuals. It artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees by forcing them to rely on aggregating small-dollar donations from individuals while allowing other political actors, such as independent-expenditure-only political action committees, to receive unlimited corporate donations," the GOP lawyers wrote.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/gop-corporate-donation-ban-unconstitutional-110364.html

[Winehole23]

This group, and others like it, are on course to rival the fundraising of national party committees for congressional races -- or even exceed it. They raise money more quickly and spend it earlier than the parties can, and in doing so, are grabbing the steering wheel from those national bodies.


"What's basically happening is candidates and parties are losing control of messaging," says former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, who served as National Republican Congressional Committee chairman. "It's the law of unintended consequences on steroids. It has heightened the ideological polarization of the parties."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/16/super_pacs_play_growing_role_in_congressional_race s.html

[baseline bum]

0 replies. Sorry bro, everyone here is too uneducated to understand why this is outrageous.

Sorry, this news report is dog bites man; not the other way around.

[Winehole23]

Hence the notable absence of anger over it. Americans seem fairly complacent about getting screwed.

[baseline bum]

What do you plan to do? Write your congressman so he can cut off the source that makes him easily electable?

[Winehole23]

Hawaii and New Mexico have called for an amendment to the Constitution overturning Citizens' United. Hopefully a lot more states will join that effort.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hence the notable absence of anger over it. Americans seem fairly complacent about getting screwed.

Complacent or over powered?

[Winehole23]

chicken/egg, but you make a good point.

[Winehole23]

Five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Harold+Simmons) and Las Vegas (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Towns,+Cities,+Counties/Las+Vegas) casino mogul Sheldon Adelson (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Sheldon+Adelson), have donated nearly $1 of every $4 flowing to the super PACs raising unlimited money in this year's presidential race, a USA TODAY analysis shows.


Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups swamp Democratic-friendly super PACs in fundraising — money that is used largely for attack ads. The large sums also have rejuvenated the underfunded campaigns of principal challengers to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Governors,+Mayors/Mitt+Romney) in the race for the Repulican nomination.


"Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over," said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine. "Super PACs (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Super+PACs) have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-21/super-pac-donors/53196658/1

[boutons_deux]

"Complacent or over powered"

Complacent AND over-powered AND ignorant.

News Flash: There is no solution. The VRWC has won the war, and are now mopping up by going after property taxes (privatizing public schools to union-less for-profit scam schools), all public utilities, and will continue to target SS for privatization.

[Winehole23]

http://www.propublica.org/article/two-dark-money-groups-outspending-all-super-pacs-combined

[Winehole23]

updated: 501(c)4s are leaving super PACs in the shade.


Forget super PACs, their much-hyped cousins, which can take unlimited contributions but must name their donors. More money (http://www.propublica.org/article/two-dark-money-groups-outspending-all-super-pacs-combined) is being spent on TV advertising in the presidential race by social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)s for their section of the tax code, than by any other type of independent group.



As of Aug. 8, they had spent more than $71 million on ads mentioning a candidate for president, according to estimates by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, or CMAG (http://kantarmediana.com/cmag). Super PACs have spent an estimated $56 million.



Congress created the legal framework for 501(c)(4) nonprofits nearly a century ago. To receive the tax exemption, groups were supposed to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." The IRS later opened the door to some forms of political activity by interpreting the statute to mean groups had to be "primarily" (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicg81.pdf) engaged in enhancing social welfare. But neither the tax code nor regulators set out how this would be measured.
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare

[Winehole23]

"The tax laws are being ripped off and the public is being denied information to which they are entitled — namely, who is financing ads that are being run to influence their votes," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21 (http://www.democracy21.org/), a watchdog group that has filed repeated complaints about 501(c)(4)s to regulators.

[Bartleby]

Hawaii and New Mexico have called for an amendment to the Constitution overturning Citizens' United. Hopefully a lot more states will join that effort.

Seems the chances of that getting passed are slim to none right now, but at least they're making an effort.

[boutons_deux]

America is fucked and unfuckable.

"amendment to the Constitution" :lol

[Winehole23]

go ahead and laugh at people power. it suits you and your lazy nihilism.

[boutons_deux]

go ahead and think that the 1%, VRWC, UCA, financial sector don't own and operate the country for their protection and enrichment.

Get back to me when you have ANY DATA to the contrary.

[George Gervin's Afro]

so now anonymous shadow groups can fund elections and influence their outcomes... nice!

[Winehole23]

have for quite some time now...not that people pay it much heed, except for briefly, once every two to four years.

[Clipper Nation]

so now anonymous shadow groups can fund elections and influence their outcomes... nice!
Now? This has been going on for decades, B.... the Fed, banksters, special interests, and defense contractors have an outsized influence on our elections and the actions of our elected officials, tbh..... and it happens on both sides of the aisle, not just one....

[boutons_deux]

"This has been going on for decades"

Not at this volume of black cash into absolute fraud like "social welfare" PACs, and $100Ms of secret money flows. C-U totally transforms the situation for the worse, thank you Repug extreme activist JINO SCOTUS.

Corporate-Americans $Bs is protected 1st Amendment free speech, but they can speak in 100% secrecy.

[symple19]

scary stuff

And beneficial to both established political parties, as well as their faceless, rich, and powerful string pullers

[symple19]

And Wino, dude, your OP's are almost always read by this poster, if not always responded to

[Winehole23]

thx, man

[ElNono]

The Illuminati!

[EVAY]

It is time to be very nihilistic, imo.

The SCOTUS has said it is legal for untold millions to be contributed by unnamed donors to whatever 'educational' 501c(4) political 'issues' boards in each and every election we have. That means that we, the people, have lost our 'one man, one vote' position.

There is nothing in this world that we can do about it, is there?

[Wild Cobra]

so now anonymous shadow groups can fund elections and influence their outcomes... nice!
Who do you think China will support?

I'll bet Obama since he wants to give our nation away.

[Winehole23]

http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/reporting/uploads/IE%20chart.jpg This cycle's outside spending mostly comes in the form of "independent expenditures" supporting or opposing political candidates by unions, corporations, trade associations, non-profit groups and super PACs. This money enabled outside groups to run shadow campaigns for or against candidates of their choice, as a look at some of the expenditures reported over the weekend (http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/independent-expenditures/)shows. They include:$117,880 from Planned Parenthood for a mailer against Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, $5,000 from the Natural Resources Defense Council for plane flyover message against Heather Wilson, the Republican Senate candidate in New Mexico, and $1,735 for a TV ad opposing Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, underwritten by a group called America Is Not Stupid, Inc. (http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/the-fenwick-papers/Content?oid=1677796)

(http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/the-fenwick-papers/Content?oid=1677796)
But it also includes $4.1 million in expenditures for "electioneering," the term used for ads and political activities that focus on issues and policies in ways that not-so-subtly encourage voters to support or oppose a particular candidate.


About 78 percent of this year's outside spending can be attributed to the Citizens United effect:



$272 million from super PACs, entities that came into being only following the Supreme Court's January 2010 decision, and
almost $93 million from corporations, trade associations and non-profits -- groups that the Supreme Court ruling allowed to spend in unlimited amounts and that, because of their tax status, are not required to disclose the source of their funds to the Federal Election Commission.

The $365 million those groups have pumped into the campaign so far is almost double their contribution in 2010, according to Sunlight's calculations.
(http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/11/04/the-citizens-united-effect-40-percent-of-outside-money-made-possible-by-supreme-court-ruling/)

(http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/11/04/the-citizens-united-effect-40-percent-of-outside-money-made-possible-by-supreme-court-ruling/)
A deeper dive into the data shows that the latest uptick in outside spending is focused on congressional races: Even in presidential battleground states, almost all the spending by outside groups is focused on House and Senate candidates. The groups providing the cash run the gamut of outside spending organizations and have widely different strategies
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/gross-political-product-outside-campaign-spending-tops-2010-tota/

[Winehole23]

King of fundraising: Obama leads Romney by $242 million

By Bill Allison (http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/author/ballison) Sep 21 2012 2:33 p.m.

While the most recent Gallup poll (http://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-sept-21-2012-9) shows registered voters equally split, at 47 percent a piece, in the money race President Barack Obama has an unassailable lead.



In the 2012 campaign cycle, Obama's campaign, the Democratic National Committee and two joint fundraising committees supporting them have collectively raised $743.5 million. The campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, his joint fundraising committee and the Republican National Committee have raised $500.6 million. Because the joint fundraising committee, Romney Victory Inc., files quarterly, its total had to be estimated from media accounts of the campaign's August fundraising totals.


The fundraising dominance of the Obama campaign paid off In August, when his campaign reported spending (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M9/C00431445/B_PURPOSE_C00431445.html) $66.2 million on media buys, consulting and production--nearly five times as much as the $18 million spent (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M9/C00431171/B_PURPOSE_C00431171.html) by his opponent, former Masachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, on getting his message out.


Heading into the election's final weeks, Romney, the RNC and an estimated total for Romney's joint fundraising committee show the Republicans lead in cash on hand, with $165 million vs. $125 million for Obama, the DNC and the joint committees, Obama Victory Fund 2012 and the Swing State Victory Fund. However, the New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/politics/romney-campaign-cautious-with-ad-budget-even-in-key-states.html?ref=politics) that much of the money Romney raised for the RNC over the summer is earmarked, not for his own campaign, but for congressional campaigns and state party committees.


Comparing just the Romney and Obama campaign committees, the President again has the advantage, with $38.3 million more in the bank than the Romney campaign, which also reported debts of $15 million after taking out a $20 million loan in August.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/king-fundraising-obama-leads-romney-242-million/

[Winehole23]

VRWC/1%er/UCA advantage goes to Obama.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol gfy

[Winehole23]

with gusto!

[Winehole23]

multiple super PACS stand behind a number of primary contenders on the GOP side. could be another bruising fight between candidates who have little chance in the general election.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/01/perry-gets-second-super-pac-2016-race/

[boutons_deux]

Clinton On Track To Raise $45 Million In First Quarter

Hillary Rodham Clinton is on track to raise a record $45 million in contributions during her first quarter as a 2016 presidential candidate, building a formidable campaign fund that further solidifies her position as the prohibitive Democratic front-runner, according to numbers released by her campaign Wednesday morning.

In a sign of the growing dominance of money in politics, the staggering amount of cash far exceeds what Clinton raised during her first quarter as a candidate eight years ago, when officials from her campaign reported they were ecstatic with her $26 million haul. It also dwarfs the amount her next-closest rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is likely to raise.

The fundraising quarter that ended Tuesday is traditionally used as a barometer to gauge the strength of campaigns. Clinton officials boasted that they bested the previous record for a first-quarter candidate, which was set by President Barack Obama in 2011 as he embarked on his re-election campaign. Obama raised $41.9 million during that period.

But the large bank account by no means clears the field for Clinton.

Sanders, who has not yet released his fundraising figures, has enough in the bank to mount a competitive challenge in at least the early states. Earlier in the quarter, he had already raised $8 million from more than 200,000 donors. At this stage in the campaign, the number of donors can be as important as the total amount raised, as it reflects grass-roots support and enthusiasm.

The Clinton campaign did not reveal how many people contributed in a background memo sent to reporters. But it noted that 91 percent of the contributions were $100 or less. In the final days of the quarter, the campaign had blitzed supporters with emails, imploring them to give as little as $1 — a clear sign of Clinton’s eagerness to show broad-based interest. The pitches set a goal of 50,000 contributions.

Campaign officials have said they need $100 million to win the primary. They are clearly well on their way. Should Clinton win, however, she will need to ramp up her fundraising substantially. A successful general election campaign fund would likely exceed $1 billion.

Much of that money won’t be directed to the official campaign account, which cannot accept contributions exceeding $2,700 per donor. The funds will be sent to Clinton’s super PAC, which evades federal fundraising rules by operating independent of the campaign. Donors are free to give unlimited amounts to that fund.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/clinton-on-track-to-raise-45-million-in-first-quarter/

[Winehole23]

Obama was the first billion dollar candidate, first to forgo public financing. Dems have been the pioneers in the era of unlimited soft money. HRC solidifies the impression.

[pgardn]

We still have the vote.

If the masses really cared enough to eliminate this crap they could. People got it inverted... Money buys recognition. Recognition leads to votes. This rule can be eliminated with an educated public willing to do some work. But it won't because it has not become a big enough issue. There are organizations that have the sole purpose of digging into contributions. Give them money. Or don't.

[boutons_deux]

Obama was the first billion dollar candidate, first to forgo public financing. Dems have been the pioneers in the era of unlimited soft money. HRC solidifies the impression.

soft money? you mean dark money from billionaires and fraudulent right-wind "social welfare" orgs?

same phenom as Obama vs Bishop Gecko: "noted that 91 percent of the contributions were $100 or less"

[boutons_deux]

We still have the vote.

"influence peddling" politicians pay attention to who pays the most for influence.

Politicians run on a "platform", on sound bites, on hot buttons, just enough to win votes, but once in office, they legislate to please their biggest donors, not to satisfy their voters.

[pgardn]

"influence peddling" politicians pay attention to who pays the most for influence.

Politicians run on a "platform", on sound bites, on hot buttons, just enough to win votes, but once in office, they legislate to please their biggest donors, not to satisfy their voters.

People that work, and work long hours don't have the time to post on this board. And if they do I hope they are single. Once a person is in office he/she is not immune to influence of the masses. The masses must be informed however and must be willing to participate. It's not like corruption is at an all time high right now. This is not the 1920's for example. Just because we live right now does not make our time the best and worst of times.

[boutons_deux]

Once a person is in office he/she is not immune to influence of the masses. The masses must be informed however and must be willing to participate

theoretical, airy fairy academic idealistic bullshit

several studies have shown that big contributors obtain the policies that favor themselves, eg:

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/08/15/what-do-rich-political-donors-get-for-their-contributions/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/20/1378855/-The-richest-0-01-percent-of-Americans-gave-42-percent-of-political-donations-in-2012#2012 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/20/1378855/-The-richest-0-01-percent-of-Americans-gave-42-percent-of-political-donations-in-2012)

[Winehole23]

way up again. the Marxist-Leninists at WSJ highlight the bigger role billionaires play now:


Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.

The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.


Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show.




The proliferation of the committees also is transforming how presidential campaigns will be run. Some candidates are exporting to outside groups some core components of their operations, including voter-turnout programs and television advertising. Since federal law prohibits coordination with super PACs, the candidates won’t have direct control over some essential tasks, pushing the 2016 race into uncharted territory.


The broad engagement by wealthy donors also helps explain why the GOP field, in particular, keeps expanding. Almost every one of the primary candidates has a billionaire at his back, which means the life of their candidacies is now divorced from their ability to directly raise money from voters.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-super-pac-rakes-in-cash-from-billionaires-1438372919

[baseline bum]

We still have the vote.

If the masses really cared enough to eliminate this crap they could. People got it inverted... Money buys recognition. Recognition leads to votes. This rule can be eliminated with an educated public willing to do some work. But it won't because it has not become a big enough issue. There are organizations that have the sole purpose of digging into contributions. Give them money. Or don't.

Our media isn't designed to create an educated public, and our schools sure aren't either.

[boutons_deux]

"their candidacies is now divorced from their ability to directly raise money from voters."

or EVER to be President.

America is fucked and unfuckable, and the laughing stock of the rest of the industrial countries.

[Winehole23]

a Republican Super PAC torpedoed Don Blankenship:


Allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used a blind spot in campaign finance laws to undercut a candidate from their own party this year — and their fingerprints remained hidden until the primary was already over.


Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums of money in elections, are supposed to regularly disclose their funders. But in the case of Mountain Families PAC, Republicans managed to spend $1.3 million against Don Blankenship, a mustachioed former coal baron who was a wild-card candidate for a must-win West Virginia Senate seat, in May without revealing who was (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/15/west-virginia-senate-blankenship-525094) supplying the cash.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-hidden-money-funding-the-midterms

[Winehole23]

The move worked like this: Start a new super PAC after a deadline for reporting donors and expenses, then raise and spend money before the next report is due. Timed right, a super PAC might get a month or more undercover before being required to reveal its donors. And if a super PAC launches right before the election, voters won’t know who’s funding it until after they go to the polls.

The strategy — which is legal — is proving increasingly popular among Democrats and Republicans. The amount of super PAC spending during the 2016 congressional primaries in which the first donor disclosure occurred after the primary election totaled $9 million. That figure increased to $15.6 million during the 2018 congressional primaries and special elections.

[Winehole23]

Super PACs were created after the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision ruled that people and corporations had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures such as funding ads or mailers, but that they couldn’t hide that spending from the public.


But while they can’t keep donors secret forever, super PACs are increasingly figuring out methods of temporarily masking donor identities that are either legal or fall into gray areas that rarely attract regulators’ attention.

[SnakeBoy]

Nobody cares

[Winehole23]

eh, how would you know?

[Winehole23]

I thought it was kind of neat how Republicans created a bespoke Super PAC to undermine Don Blankenship and hid their fingerprints until aft.er the election, don't you?

[SnakeBoy]

I thought it was kind of neat how Republicans created a bespoke Super PAC to undermine Don Blankenship and hid their fingerprints until aft.er the election, don't you?

Sounds cool

[Winehole23]

I thought you'd like that

[ElNono]

in before fucked and unfuckable

[boutons_deux]

... as ELN says, the American political system is totally corrupted, owned by the oligarchy, and beyond the reach of suppressed, defrauded, disenfranchised citizens.