Bloomberg Businessweek: Battle begins between Obama, Republican super PACs

Written by admin on May 7th, 2012

Independent groups favoring Mitt Romney already are launching TV advertisements in competitive states for the November general election, providing political cover against President Barack Obama’s well-financed campaign while the Republican candidate works to rebound from a bruising and expensive nomination fight

Bloomberg Businessweek

Some conservative organizations also are planning big get-out-the-vote efforts, and Romney backers are courting wealthy patrons of his former GOP rivals.

Taken together, the developments underscore how dramatically the political landscape has changed since a trio of federal court cases — most notably the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling — paved the way for a flood of campaign cash from corporations and tycoons looking to help their favored candidates.

“Citizens United has made an already aggressive anti-Obama movement even more empowered,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington. “There’s now a regular Republican line of attack on Obama, even when the Romney campaign is taking a breather, raising money and preparing for the general election.”

The general election spending — and advertising — has only just begun. Voters in roughly a dozen hard-fought states will be inundated with TV ads, direct mail, automated phone calls and other forms of outreach by campaign staff members and volunteers pleading for their votes. While Obama and Romney both will spend huge amounts of money in the coming months, an untold additional amount will come from outside organizations called super PACs that can collect unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals.

Already, Obama’s campaign has spent $3.6 million on commercials in key battlegrounds in the weeks since Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee.

Its latest ad depicts Romney, a wealthy former private equity executive, as a corporate raider who once maintained a Swiss bank account. The president had $104 million on hand at the end of March, giving his campaign a 10-1 advantage over Romney who had just $10 million his campaign bank at the same time.

But Obama is unlikely to receive anywhere near the kind of financial backup Romney is already getting from outside groups. The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action has raised just $10 million since its inception, and few other Democratic-leaning groups have signaled they plan to compete with the pro-Romney efforts.

The latest of these comes from Restore Our Future, a super PAC run by former Romney advisers.

The group announced Wednesday it will go up with $4.3 million in ads this week in nine states that will be key to winning the White House. The ad, “Saved,” describes Romney’s efforts that helped lead to the rescue of the teenage daughter of a colleague after she disappeared in New York for three days.

ROF was by far the biggest advertiser during the Republican nominating contest, spending $36 million on ads attacking Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. The group has raised more than $51 million since its inception.

Its initial general election push follows a $1.7 million, three-state ad buy from Crossroads GPS. That group’s spot attacks Obama’s energy policies. And it is an arm of American Crossroads, a super PAC with ties to President George W. Bush’s longtime political director Karl Rove and one of the most prolific spenders in the 2010 cycle that put the House in Republican hands. The two Crossroads groups have already raised $100 million collectively for 2012 and plan to spend as much as $300 million to defeat Obama and other Democrats.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative-leaning independent group backed by the billionaire energy tycoons Charles and David Koch, dropped $6.1 million on ads in eight general election swing states last week hitting Obama for allowing millions in federal stimulus money to be directed to green energy companies overseas. The group spent $6.5 million earlier this year on ads criticizing Obama over Solyndra, a California-based solar energy company that went bankrupt despite a $535 million federal loan guarantee.

AFP president Tim Phillips said the group planned to raise $100 million and that slightly less than half would go to advertising. Much of the remaining amount, he said, would be used for field operations like rallies, bus tours, canvassing, phone banks and micro-targeting.

AFP boasts chapters in 34 states and its field operations have included annual conservative conferences.

Phillips cited Florida, where the group now has a staff of 20 and has promoted bus tours assailing Obama and Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson.

“We use our rallies to let people know how their president and their senators and congressmen are voting on key issues,” Phillips said. “A rally focusing on government over-spending can be as effective as a media buy.”

The Romney campaign, by contrast, has not run its own TV ads since former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum dropped out of the GOP nomination fight in April.

Senior Romney aides said they are closely tracking the super PAC ad buys from allies but insist there is no coordination between the campaign and the outside groups.

At the same time, Romney’s team also is working to improve relations with Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess, billionaires who almost single-handedly financed super PACs supporting Romney’s opponents during the nomination fight.

Representatives of ROF and other Romney backers have reached out to Adelson, a casino mogul who contributed about $20 million to a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. But Adelson has not yet given money to the pro-Romney efforts, and a person close to him said he doesn’t want to be a campaign distraction and may give money only to groups like Crossroads GPS and other nonprofit advocacy organizations not required to disclose their donors.

Friess, who helped bankroll a super PAC supporting Santorum, has said he would back Romney and has spoken to Romney supporters.

Romney’s campaign concedes that the super PAC activity alleviates financial stress as he works to add staff and raise campaign cash.

His aides are also noting Priorities USA Action’s slow start compared to the pro-Romney groups. The disparity is fueling a quiet confidence among Romney advisers who believe that his super PAC support will significantly narrow Obama’s current 10-to-1 cash advantage

 

Maplight: The Bulk of Super PAC Money Flows from a Few Individual Donors

Written by admin on April 11th, 2012

Our friends at Maplight have put together an interactive chart which displays the distribution of donations to Super PACs.

MapLight

Following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United, and a subsequent ruling in a lower court, Speech Now v FEC, any entity (be it an individual, union, or company) is now able to make unlimited contributions to Super PACs to specifically advocate for or against federal candidates as long as they do not explicitly coordinate with those candidates’ campaigns. MapLight has conducted an analysis of the geographicial origins of the nearly $78 million in campaign contributions to Independent Expenditure-Only Committees (Super PACs) from Jan. 1, 2011- Feb. 29, 2012. Data source: Federal Election Commission (http://fec.gov/portal/super_pacs.shtml). Super PAC candidate positions provided by the New York Times.

A link to a spreadsheet of itemized data (names of contributors and contribution origin) from the Origins of Super PAC Money report can be found here. Click on the summary tab for totals. If you use our data we would appreciate if you would cite us accordingly (i.e. A MapLight analysis of FEC data shows…). MapLight is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in politics.

DATA HIGLIGHTS:

  • Restore Our Future Super PAC (Romney) has raised $8.6M in New York from 42 contributors
  • Winning Our Future Super PAC (Gingrich) has raised $16.5M in Nevada from 8 contributors
  • Priorities USA Action Super PAC (Obama) has raised $3.9M in California from 56 contributors
  • Red White and Blue Fund Super PAC (Santorum) has raised $1.6M in Wyoming from 1 contributor
  • Endorse Liberty Super PAC (Paul) has raised $2.7M in California from 10 contributors

DATA VISUALIZATION:

Clicking on a state will reveal the contributions to Super PACs from individual cities from that state. A drop-down menu also allows for candidate comparisons as well as a geographic distribution of individual contributions to candidate-supporting Super PACs. Actual names of contributors can be found here.

A link to this Tableau data visualization can be found here. An embed code, which will allow you to host the visualization on your website or blog, is available by clicking on the link symbol at the bottom of the visual. Please call if you need technical assistance, 510-868-0894.

MapLight provides timely analysis to assist journalists with their news stories. Interviews with our researchers can be conducted in our Berkeley office or at UC Berkeley’s J-School

 

Emory Wheel: Media and Super PACs Dominate Our Political Discourse

Written by admin on March 28th, 2012

In our time, the best advice to give someone looking to make a difference in the nation’s political discourse would be to not seek elected office and stay out of politics. With the advent of Super PACs and a 24-hour news cycle, pundits and political agencies have more influence than Congress itself.

Emory Wheel

In the words of comedian Robin Williams: “Politicians should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we can identify their corporate sponsors.”

Gallup.com has consistently rated congressional approval around 12 percent for the past several months and for good reason — it doesn’t get anything done. Last summer’s debt ceiling debate, stalling the American Jobs Act and preventing members of Congress from participating in insider trading are only a few examples of the impotence of the legislative branch.

Even in the 111th Congress, which passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), required 60 votes in the Senate to even debate the passage of a bill.
This is certainly not a recent development, but what has become increasingly relevant are the rise of political organizations that lack transparency, as they are fueled by anonymous donors, as a result of the disastrous Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Although Super PACs are prohibited by law from aligning with a particular candidate, it is no secret that there is a definite connection between candidates and the innocuous-sounding money machines that put our nation’s interests in the hands of the wealthy few.

Winning Our Future supports the imminent bust of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy, Restore Our Future is the Super PAC funding Mitt Romney’s future “restoration” of his ever-changing political opinions, the Red White and Blue Fund pulls in the green for Santorum and Revolution PAC appears to back Ron Paul’s ash heap candidacy.

The irony of Super PACs in the Republican primaries is that with as much money and power they control, they prop up a band of misfits who are clearly unable, with the potential exception of Romney, to make the White House their next place of residence. If the Republican National Convention is split in Tampa this August, it will likely be because of the many nameless individuals controlling Super PACs.

Following the theme of centralized power and individuals pulling the political strings from behind the curtain are people like Grover Norquist who is unfamiliar to most Americans despite being called, by many, the most powerful man in Washington. His often-overlooked role is his so-called Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which binds 238 Representatives and 41 Senators, and in effect, the rest of Congress from ever raising taxes despite support from the majority of Americans to do so. The punishment for breaking the pledge is conservative uproar, but the consequence for following through with it is fiscal irresponsibility and denying the reality that taxes occasionally need to be raised.

The problem exists not only for conservative causes, but also with people like George Soros funding liberal organizations and several democratic congressmen across the nation. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign that fights for gay rights, though a noble cause, have gained considerable influence in recent years.

And if controlling the money in elections isn’t enough, the media is also drastically more powerful than Congress. Although they use completely different tactics, Fox News and people like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert do more to shape public opinion than just about anyone in the country, and their viewers have more trust in them than their elected officials.

Fox News, in particular, has done a fantastic job to blur the line between quasi-pundits and quasi-politicians with Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Karl Rove as contributors. This is particularly troubling considering that the rule of thumb for these talking heads is to make the most outlandish statements in order to have better ratings.

If the argument that individuals who do not hold public office have more power than those on Capitol Hill is not clear enough, consider the last time any lawmaker received more attention for legislating than did Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments about Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke or the last time a lawmaker received more attention for legislative efforts than for controversy.

In the current political system, money and the media have managed to tilt power in favor of the few and the result is a Washington that works for special interests, rather than special interests working for Washington, let alone Washington working for its constituents.

 

Wall Street Journal: Texas Billionaire Doles Out Election’s Biggest Checks

Written by admin on March 22nd, 2012

Few people want to defeat President Barack Obama more than billionaire Harold Clark Simmons, who is willing to spend many millions of dollars in the quest. As it happens, campaign rules now give him the opportunity.

Wall Street Journal

Watching a TV news report that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was rising in polls last month, Mr. Simmons wondered about the prospects of the former Pennsylvania senator. He called his personal political muse, Republican strategist Karl Rove.

“Is he worth investing into his super PAC?” Mr. Simmons asked. He rose from his leather recliner in the den and stood at a bay window overlooking swans gliding on a lake encircled by 17,000 tulips. “Does he have a chance?”

“Yes, I wouldn’t count him out,” Mr. Rove said. Mr. Simmons’s wife, Annette, who was keen on Mr. Santorum, promptly donated $1 million to his super PAC, cash badly needed for an ad blitz ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries.

The 80-year-old Texan, who heads Contran Corp., a chemicals and metals conglomerate, gave hefty donations to the super PACs supporting other GOP candidates during similar moments in the spotlight: Rick Perry’s optimistic entry into the race last summer, and after the debate-driven surge of Newt Gingrich. Mr. Simmons has so far given $800,000—including $500,000 this week—to super PACs backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won the Illinois primary Tuesday and contends no rival can catch him in the GOP delegate race.

It isn’t particularly important which man wins the nomination, for Mr. Simmons simply wants to defeat the president and reduce the reach of government. “Any of these Republicans would make a better president than that socialist, Obama,” said Mr. Simmons during two days of rare interviews at his Dallas home and office. “Obama is the most dangerous American alive…because he would eliminate free enterprise in this country.”

The tall, lanky, soft-spoken industrialist has given more than $18 million to conservative super PACs so far, making him the 2012 election’s single largest contributor—ahead of billionaires Sheldon Adelson, Mr. Gingrich’s financial patron, and Foster Friess, Mr. Santorum’s biggest donor.

Sipping lemonade iced tea made with lemons grown on his California estate east of Santa Barbara—next door to Oprah Winfrey’s place in Montecito—Mr. Simmons said he planned to spend $36 million before the November election.

Unlike some big donors—including Mr. Adelson—Mr. Simmons isn’t driven by an attraction to a specific candidate or policy. His motivation is broader: to elect Republicans up and down the line in the hopes they will change the overall U.S. tax and regulatory approach.

That helps explain why the biggest chunk of his political contributions in this election cycle have gone not to individual candidates but to Mr. Rove-advised super PAC American Crossroads—its stated mission to defeat Mr. Obama and elect “majorities in both the House and the Senate that are 100% dedicated to rescuing our economy from the Obama agenda.”

Mr. Simmons has some businesses that are heavily regulated, which helps explains his interest in deregulation. He also pushes for tort reform. One of his companies, NL Industries Inc., has fought lawsuits from school districts and businesses over lead paint that it made before Mr. Simmons acquired it.

More broadly, he said, he and other individuals need to contribute to match the “unlimited amounts from labor unions” that benefit liberal candidates.

“I’ve got the money, so I’m spending it for the good of the country,” said Mr. Simmons, whose net worth is estimated at $10 billion, up from an estimated $4.1 billion in prerecession 2006, according to Forbes. He wears $3,000 Brioni sport coats in a nod to his wealth and Wal-Mart underwear in a sign of a frugal upbringing; his early years were spent without indoor plumbing or electricity.

Republicans consider super PAC contributions essential to offset an expected advantage by Mr. Obama’s campaign, which had $85 million in reserves at the end of February—more than all four GOP presidential candidates combined, and well more than the $7.3 million on hand for Mr. Romne

Democrats also have financial advantages when it comes to official party organizations. The Democratic National Committee has outraised its Republican counterpart $157.7 million to $116.3 million so far, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The two party organizations have roughly the same amount of cash on hand, but the Republican National Committee, still digging out of a deep financial hole from the 2010 election, has about twice as much debt.

Democratic committees to support House and Senate candidates also have slightly outraised their Republican counterparts so far this cycle.

In contrast, the Republican advantage lies with the super PACs. The largest Democratic-leaning super PAC, the one set up to benefit Mr. Obama, has raised just $6.3 million compared with $26.9 million by American Crossroads. (The American Crossroads figure doesn’t include money contributed to a sister organization that doesn’t have to make public its donors.)

This year’s election seems tailor-made for Mr. Simmons. New rules effectively eliminate limits for those willing to take advantage of a string of federal court decisions and regulatory changes that together allow super PACs to take unlimited donations and advocate for a candidate or party, as long as they don’t coordinate their spending with the presidential campaigns.

People who disagree with the changes say super PACs now have more influence than political parties and are less accountable. “Harold Simmons is unleashed to give as much as he wants—whether motivated to help Republicans or his business empire,” said Bill Allison, editorial director of Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan government watchdog group.

Ben LaBolt, of the Obama campaign, said: “Mr. Simmons is a self-proclaimed corporate raider who, like many others representing special interests, will spend whatever it takes to maintain the ability to write rules that benefit his own interests at the expense of middle-class Americans and to the detriment of what’s best for the nation.”

Mr. Simmons said, “You never talk about what you want when giving money.” Besides, he added, “I don’t pay attention to what other people think…There shouldn’t be restrictions of any kind on political contributions.”

He is a longtime political donor; he was fined by the Federal Election Commission for surpassing contribution limits in 1988 and 1989, which he said was inadvertent. When politicians call his office now, his secretary runs an Internet search to ensure they are “pro-business, antigovernment,” he said. He isn’t interested in such conservative social issues as abortion. “I’d probably be pro-choice,” he said. “Let people make decisions on their own bodies.”

Longtime friend and oil man T. Boone Pickens described Mr. Simmons as a man who backs up his beliefs with his bucks. “Harold isn’t doing this for attention,” the fellow Republican said. To the contrary, while mega-donors Mr. Adelson and Mr. Friess have gone on TV to tout big gifts to their candidates, Mr. Simmons rarely speaks publicly. He agreed nonetheless to talk with The Wall Street Journal on a range of subjects, including money, politics and his appetite for sweet potatoes.

The son of school teachers from tiny Golden, in east Texas, Mr. Simmons earned economics degrees—a bachelor’s degree in 1951 and a master’s degree a year later—from the University of Texas, where he also played guard on the 1951 basketball team that won the Southwest Conference. He worked as a bank examiner for the federal government and a bank loan officer.

“All the guys getting loans had high-school educations and were making more money,” Mr. Simmons said. “I had grandiose financing ideas but no one listened to me. I had no credibility as a businessman.”

To remedy that, Mr. Simmons bought his first business in 1960, a drugstore across the street from Southern Methodist University, using $5,000 in savings and a $95,000 loan. He kept buying another and another, eventually getting a pilot’s license to visit them all. In 1973, he sold his 100-store chain for $50 million. Mr. Simmons used the proceeds to buy stock of underperforming public companies, turning into a corporate raider in the 1970s and 1980s with the nickname “Ice Man.”

Mr. Simmons said his political activism was sparked in 1983, when the Labor Department accused him of mishandling pension fund assets. A federal judge found he invested an excessive portion of the pension in a takeover target, Amalgamated Sugar Co. The judge awarded no cash damages because the fund earned 50% on its investment. Mr. Simmons agreed not to use pension funds in takeover bids for 10 years, according to a consent decree that settled the case.

“That’s when I started contributing to politicians with free-market and antiregulation agendas,” he said. “If the Labor Department hadn’t sued, that pension would be as rich as me.”

His corporate empire, under the Contran holding company, includes large stakes in multinational conglomerates NL Industries, Titanium Metals Corp., Valhi Inc., Kronos Worldwide Inc. and Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc. These diverse interests include the heavily regulated waste-control and nuclear-waste disposal businesses, as well as some of the world’s biggest manufacturers of chemicals, components and titanium for military and commercial aircraft.

Many of these companies bear the weight of government regulatory decisions, making Mr. Simmons’s political interest more than simple patriotism. “We live with a smothering of government,” said Steven Watson, Contran’s No. 2 executive. He listed oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency, banking regulators, the Labor Department and Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as “frivolous lawsuits” brought by state attorneys general.

From a spotless desk, Mr. Simmons pores over financial statements of his far-flung empire, which has 10,000 employees world-wide. “No one understands my financials better than I do,” he said. “It’s so much fun to run my companies.”

His business success allows a lavish life. On a recent weekend, Mr. Simmons flew his jet, with two co-pilots aboard, to his Santa Barbara County estate. He also frequently flies to his Arkansas ranch—filled with 35 bears and 100 elk, as well as 250 deer and 300 wild turkeys for hunting.

This month, Mr. Simmons played golf at Augusta National and frequently plays with his stepson Andy Fleck, who works for Contran. Mr. Simmons works out at home with a Pilates instructor. He drinks Opus One wine and typically eats fish. On Sunday nights, he grills steak for dinners with his wife.

He and Annette Simmons, 76, his wife of 31 years, are major philanthropists, with their names on buildings throughout the state. “Harold doesn’t say a word. He’s so quiet, he hardly talks,” said Dallas grande dame Ruth Atshuler. “He just makes tons of money and gives it away.” At social events, caterers give Mr. Simmons a doggie bag to take home in his chauffeur-driven Bentley.

He has given $500 million to mostly Texas charities, including a new organ-transplant hospital wing after his successful kidney transplant a few years ago. His stepdaughter Amy donated a kidney to Mr. Simmons, who later adopted her. He also gave $5 million to a South African school started by his California neighbor, Ms. Winfrey. The TV host had Mrs. Simmons on her show twice—about the annual sweet-potato festival in Mr. Simmons’s hometown and Mrs. Simmons’s famous tea parties. At her 50th birthday party, Ms. Winfrey danced first with Mr. Simmons—until John Travolta cut in.

The billionaire takes day trips every week to visit obscure libraries, churches and museums around Texas. He arrives unannounced and typically turns over a big check or several hundred dollar bills. He gives $50 and $100 bills to panhandlers to and from work. If they use the money to buy liquor or drugs, he said, it’s “not my business.”

The Simmonses hobnob with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Mr. Pickens and their wives. “Harold was my first supporter and friend when there was no honeymoon in this town,” said Mr. Jones, who was reviled when he bought the team 23 years ago and fired coach Tom Landry. He and Mr. Simmons have neighboring boxes at the new Cowboy stadium.

On a recent afternoon, Mr. Simmons, donning a Dallas Cowboy Windbreaker, walked his Springer Spaniel Duke and counted the ducks in his lake, 42 on this morning. Three times he climbed the 60 stairs of the brick tower he built in his backyard to watch the Dallas sunset

Later that day, Mr. Simmons, who goes to Luby’s Cafeteria for a $5.95 lunch or brings leftovers, met with the two of his four daughters who run his charitable foundation. Serena Simmons Connelly strongly disagrees with her father’s politics. But she recently removed her Obama bumper sticker as a concession. “Dad and I have parking spots next to each other,” she said.

Mr. Simmons was a key donor for the Swift Boat veterans’ attack ads against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, as well as the 2008 campaign ads touting ties between Mr. Obama and Bill Ayers, co-founder of the radical Weather Underground. “If we had run more ads,” he said, “we could have killed Obama

Mr. Simmons relishes his chance to give freely in this year’s election, particularly in conjunction with Mr. Rove, the top political adviser to former President George W. Bush. “Karl is the best political mind out there,” he said.

In early 2010, Mr. Rove gathered a handful of big Texas donors for lunch at a private club in Dallas, including Mr. Pickens, real-estate magnate Harlan Crow and Mr. Simmons. Mr. Rove explained how the fledgling group American Crossroads would work to defeat Mr. Obama and get GOP control of Congress. “All of us are responsible for the kind of country we have,” Mr. Rove recalled saying.

After Mr. Rove paused, Mr. Simmons spoke first. “I’m in,” he said. Mr. Rove said Mr. Simmons’s early nod helped give the group instant credibility.

Mr. Simmons said he relies on Mr. Rove’s advice on the prospects and positions of candidates. Aside from his contributions to presidential contenders, Mr. Simmons and his private holding company have, since 2010, donated almost $20 million to American Crossroads, which plans with its sister organization to spend as much as $300 million to defeat Democrats in the November election

The very private Mr. Simmons and the well-known Mr. Rove have become unlikely partners, chatting by phone every couple of days. “Karl won’t waste my money,” Mr. Simmons said, noting that American Crossroads doesn’t sink money into hopeless or easily winnable contests.

“Getting control of Congress is almost as important as beating the president,” he said. “If Republicans can get control of the Senate, we can block that crap,” which he described as over-regulation of business.

Last week, Mr. Simmons considered whether to give more money to the GOP contenders, as the race narrowed to Messrs. Romney and Santorum. The billionaire with a knack for numbers sees merit in Mr. Romney’s mathematical argument that only he will win enough delegates to clinch the nomination, and he put a half million dollars behind his calculation this week.

“I have lots of money, and can give it legally now,” he said, “just never to Democrats.”

 

New York Times: Loose Border of ‘Super PAC’ and Campaign

Written by admin on February 25th, 2012

The fantasy that candidates and their campaigns are not effectively coordinating with SuperPACs should be very clear from this NY Times report.

Both parties are spending record amounts of money, from disclosed and undisclosed donors as they hide behind an impotent Federal Elections Commission.

New York Times

When Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign needs advice on direct mail strategies for reaching voters, it looks to TargetPoint Consulting. And when the independent “super PAC” supporting him needs voter research, it, too, goes to TargetPoint.

Sharing a consultant would seem to be an embodiment of coordination between a candidate and an independent group, something prohibited under federal law. But TargetPoint is just one of a handful of interconnected firms in the same office suite in Alexandria, Va., working for either the Romney campaign or the super PAC Restore Our Future.

Elsewhere in the same suite is WWP Strategies, whose co-founder is married to TargetPoint’s chief executive and works for the Romney campaign. Across the conference room is the Black Rock Group, whose co-founder — a top Romney campaign official in 2008 — now helps run both Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, another independent group that spoke up in defense of Mr. Romney’s candidacy in January. Finally, there is Crossroads Media, a media placement firm that works for American Crossroads and other Republican groups.

The overlapping roles and relationships of the consultants in Suite 555 at 66 Canal Center Plaza offer a case study in the fluidity and ineffectual enforcement of rules intended to prevent candidates from coordinating their activities with outside groups. And there has been a rising debate over the ascendancy of super PACs, which operate free of the contribution limits imposed on the candidates but are supposed to remain independent of them.

In practice, super PACs have become a way for candidates to bypass the limits by steering rich donors to these ostensibly independent groups, which function almost as adjuncts of the campaigns.

While insisting that the tangle of connections does not violate any laws, Alexander Gage, TargetPoint’s founder, said he understood how it could look “ridiculous.” His own firm had taken steps, he said, to prevent improprieties, including erecting “a fire wall” separating employees who work for the Romney campaign and the super PAC.

“We go to great lengths to make sure that we meet all legal requirements,” he said. “I have removed myself personally from working on either Restore Our Future or Romney stuff because of this sort of potential conflict of interest.”

The prohibition against candidates working in concert with independent political committees has its roots in Watergate-era reforms intended to prevent large donors from gaining improper influence over elected officials. But it has taken on added significance in the wake of recent court decisions that opened the spigot for unlimited contributions to the independent groups.

Super PACs have collected more than $100 million so far, much of it from a relatively small collection of well-heeled individuals or companies who are free to give millions to these outside groups but no more than a few thousand dollars to a candidate’s own committees. Those unlimited contributions are fueling a barrage of negative advertising in the Republican primaries.

But while the Federal Election Commission has established elaborate, though narrow, guidelines for determining whether the creation of a specific campaign advertisement violates the coordination ban, it has not focused on other kinds of activities between all PACs and candidates. Rules the commission adopted in 2003, still on the books, allow for regulation of this gray area, but they have been largely ignored.

“Most of the focus so far has been on the ads, but there may be a lot of other activity that is being coordinated between the campaigns and the super PACs that could be seen as resulting in a benefit to the campaign,” said Lawrence M. Noble, a campaign-finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps and a former general counsel for the election commission.

The regulations on coordination include a general prohibition on expenditures “made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion” of candidates and their representatives. The commission’s records show that when devising this rule, it turned aside pleas from political groups to limit enforcement only to ads, saying such a narrow focus was not what Congress intended.

Nine years later, however, there is little evidence that the commission has followed through on this intent.

The commission, made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, has long been divided along partisan lines on how far to go in enforcing rules on coordinated expenditures, often resulting in paralysis.

Last fall, the commission was asked by American Crossroads if it could broadcast certain ads, “fully coordinated” with a candidate, who would be consulted about the script and appear in the advertisement. The group argued that it would not be improper as long as the ad ran outside of a time window established by the commission for “electioneering communications.”

The commission deadlocked and could reach no conclusion.

“The campaigns know the F.E.C. isn’t going to enforce the law, and so they’ve decided to do whatever they want,” said Fred Wertheimer, whose watchdog group, Democracy 21, has complained to the Justice Department about the lack of enforcement. “What is going on is just absurd.”

The commission declined to comment for this article.

From the start, there has been no doubt that the super PACs are closely entwined with the candidates they support.

Priorities USA Action, which supports President Obama, was formed by two former White House aides, and Obama administration officials are helping it raise money. A former top aide to Newt Gingrich helps run a pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future. And Foster S. Friess, a major donor to Rick Santorum’s super PAC, often travels with the candidate.Mr. Romney has often blurred the distinction between his campaign and Restore Our Future. Last summer, discussing a large donation to the super PAC by one of his former business partners, Mr. Romney characterized it as a donation to himself. He appeared at a fund-raiser for Restore Our Future and has publicly encouraged people to donate to it.

Campaign spending reports filed by both the super PAC and the Romney campaign shed additional light on just how closely interconnected the two entities are.

Restore Our Future, for example, has paid TargetPoint Consulting nearly $350,000 for survey research. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign has paid TargetPoint nearly $200,000 for direct mail consulting. In one instance, the campaign and the super PAC paid TargetPoint on the same day.

Mr. Gage, a senior strategist in Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign, is married to Katie Packer Gage, a deputy campaign manager of the current Romney campaign. The campaign has paid her firm, WWP Strategies, nearly $250,000 for strategy consulting.

Both of their companies share an office suite with the Black Rock Group, a political consulting firm co-founded by Carl Forti, who worked as political director for Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign and helps direct Restore Our Future. The super PAC has paid Black Rock about $21,000 for communications consulting.

Mr. Forti declined to comment. Mr. Gage said that his firm had a separate work space from Black Rock, divided by a conference room. “It’s not like we’re a commingled office,” he said.

His wife’s office for WWP Strategies is in the same area as TargetPoint’s, he said, but she has been working out of the Romney headquarters in Boston for the most part. Mr. Gage said they do not discuss the campaign.

Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, said the campaign followed both the letter and the spirit of the law on coordination.

“We know the law,” she said, “and we abide by it scrupulously.”

The spending reports suggest that the Romney campaign and the super PAC, if not coordinating, have been closely following each other’s fund-raising events, though Ms. Gitcho emphasized that no joint fund-raisers had been held.

Last summer, the super PAC and the Romney campaign employed Creative Edge Parties, a New York catering company, and each sent it a payment on the same day: the super PAC gave a check for $1,676 for a “fund-raising event,” while the Romney campaign sent $1,584 for “facility rental/catering services.”

On another occasion, Restore Our Future paid $1,500 as a fund-raising expense to the Waldorf Astoria in New York, where the Romney campaign held a fund-raiser in December. Around the same time, the Romney campaign paid the Waldorf $19,000 for “facility rental/catering services” and lodging.

And in mid-July, Restore Our Future wrote two checks to Sandie Tillotson, a cosmetics executive and a friend of Mr. Romney, reimbursing her for “event costs,” which appear to be associated with a fund-raiser held in her apartment on the top floor of the north tower of the Time Warner Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the Romney campaign also sent a check to the residential board of Ms. Tillotson’s building, which is home as well to the Mandarin Oriental hotel, for “facility rental/catering services.” (The campaign had a fund-raiser at the hotel on July 19.)

The overlapping connections of American Crossroads, the independent group tied to Karl Rove, with the Alexandria office suite are likely to draw more scrutiny in the general election, should Mr. Romney win the nomination. Mr. Forti is the group’s political director, and Crossroads is expected to be a big player in November.

While American Crossroads has not officially endorsed a candidate, it has been seen by some as tacitly supporting Mr. Romney. It issued a memorandum last month defending his electability in the face of attacks by the Obama campaign. That was soon followed by another, saying its earlier note “probably should have been clearer” that the group remained neutral in the Republican primaries.

 

Sunlight Foundation: Almost 400 former House staffers registered to lobby in last two years

Written by admin on February 24th, 2012

The revolving door is alive and well in Washington. In less than three years, at least 377 House staffers employed in personal and committee offices have left Capitol Hill to become registered lobbyists, a Sunlight Foundation analysis of U.S. House disbursement data and federal lobbying records finds.

More than two in five former House staffers who registered as lobbyists went to one of Washington’s many lobbying firms. One in five went to lobby for a for-profit corporation, and another one in five went to lobby for a business or trade association. In other words, corporate America is capturing the lion’s share of former Hill staffers’ expertise. A large number also represent state and local governments and universities in their work for lobbying firms.

Sunlight Foundation

These lobbyists come from all rungs of the House hierarchy. The 377 staffers who left to lobby included 50 legislative assistants, 32 chiefs of staff, 26 legislative directors, and 22 staff assistants.

Many lobbyists came from committees as well. The Committee with the clearest path to K Street was the Financial Services Committee, where nine of 71 staffers (12.7%) went off to lobby within two years, followed closely by Judiciary (9.0%) and Oversight and Government Reform (8.7%).

Congress’s loss is the private sector’s gain. When House offices lose staffers who have built up experience and relationships in Congress, private interests gain both their policy knowhow and their political networks. Meanwhile, the House offices often find themselves relying on the expertise of their former staffers who are now in the employ of private interests.

Recently, we noted that the average House office had a retention rate of 64.2% over a two-year period. Although the majority of departing staff do not move to K Street, 377 staffers is still a significant number.

For a complete list of all the staffers who registered to lobby, what office they worked in, and where they went to lobby, click here.

WHERE STAFFERS GO ON K STREET

More than 80% of former Hill staffers who leave to lobby take jobs at Washington lobbying firms (41.5%), individual corporations (21.3%) and business and trade associations (19.1%).

By comparison, fewer than one in ten go to work for a non-profit advocacy group. Only a single former House staffer went to work for a labor union, though a few do represent unions as part of their work with Washington lobbying firms. Some (5.1%) went to work for occupational associations, such as the American Dental Association or the International Association of Fire Chiefs; another nine went to work for institutions, mostly universities.

It’s important to emphasize that this analysis is limited to registered lobbying. If former House staffers joined advocacy organizations but did not register as lobbyists, they will not show up in these tabulations.

Figure 1. Where staffers who become lobbyists go to lobby

graphic by Ali Felski

If we look at the employment destinations by position in the House, we can see some different career paths. While 56.2% of chiefs of staff who became lobbyists joined Washington lobbying firms, only 30.8% of legislative directors and 23.1% of legislative assistants who registered as lobbyists did so for a lobbying firms

Legislative directors who go downtown are about equally likely to wind up in a lobbying firm, a corporation, or a business or trade association. Legislative assistants are most likely to wind up in a business or trade association.

Non-profit advocacy, meanwhile, did not attract a single chief of staff, but it did attract two of the 26 legislative directors going to lobby and five of the 52 legislative assistants.

Generally, work in a lobbying firm offers individuals the opportunity to make the most money, though it also generally requires the most work. Some individuals prefer the stability or predictability of a corporation or a trade association, where one does not have to shift between multiple clients and does not have to hustle for new business.

 

Figure 2. Where staffers who become lobbyists go to lobby, by position

graphic by Ali Felski

 

REPRESENTATION BY SECTOR

What types of interests do these former staffers represent? In order to answer this question, we added up the number of lobbying contracts that mentioned these staffers.  State and local governments top the list, with 295 contracts, followed closely by pharmaceutical companies at 263, education (mostly universities) at 261, computers/internet at 226, and electric utilities at 192.

Table 1. Sectors former House staffers represent

Certainly, there are different ways to cut these numbers. Telephone utilities, for example spent $253 million on contracts that included these lobbyists, as compared to state and local governments, which spent $38 million, although there were many more contracts involving state and local governments.

A LOOK AT WHO GOES TO BECOME A LOBBYIST

Among the staffers who left, about two-thirds (243) previously worked in member personal offices. Of these individuals, 60.5% (147) came from Democratic offices, as compared to 39.5% (96) from Republicans. Much of this disparity, however, has to do with the fact that the Democrats lost 63 seats in the 2010 mid-term elections, putting hundreds of Democratic staffers out of work.

Among the 147 Democratic staffers who left to become lobbyists, 63 (43%) worked for members who were defeated or retired in 2010.Of member staffers-turned-lobbyists, 32% (77) came from offices where members were defeated or retired; the remaining 68% (166) worked for members who are still in office.

Table 2. Partisanship and member status of staffers turned lobbyists

three members of Congress sent at least four staffer to the ranks of registered lobbyists since 2009: Michael A. Arcuri (D-NY, 5), Adam Putnam (R-FL, 4), and Laura Richardson (D-CA, 4). Arcuri and Putnam are no longer in Congress. Both Arcuri and Richardson were on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Putnam was on the Financial Services Committee.  Table 3 shows the members at least three staff  who became lobbyists.Almost 40% (177) of the House offices in 2009 had at least one staffer become a lobbyist by 2011, and 11% (49) sent at least two individuals to become lobbyists. 

Table 3. Members with highest rates of staff going to lobby

COMMITTEES

Some committees are more likely to generate future lobbyists than others. Perhaps not surprisingly, the House committee with the highest percentage of former staffers going to lobby was the Financial Services Committee, where nine of 71 staffers (12.7%) went off to lobby. The Financial Services Committee handled the Dodd-Frank bill, which will continue to generate major lobbying activity for years as financial regulatory agencies work their way through the approximately 400 rulemaking the bill calls for. The Judiciary (9.0%) and Oversight and Government Reform (8.7%) had the next highest rates. Appropriations sent the most individuals to lobby (11, out of 145 staffers)

Table 4. Rate of staffers becoming lobbyists, by committee/leadership offices

POSITIONS

Certain positions were more likely to lead to future work as a lobbyist than others. The 377staffers employed in the House in 2009 who left to lobby included 50 legislative assistants, 32 chiefs of staff, 26 legislative directors, and 22 staff assistants.Of the 25 most common staff titles, the titles most likely to lead to staffers becoming lobbyists within the 2-year period were “Counsel” (11.2% became lobbyists), “Legislative Director” (8.9% became lobbyists), and “Legislative Counsel” (8.8% became lobbyists). Eight percent of both the chiefs of staff and the deputy chiefs of staff employed in mid-2009 became lobbyists. Interestingly, as we noted in our recent analysis of House operating budget cuts, salaries for “Counsel” positions had suffered the most between 2009 and 2011, down 5.8%. There is probably some connection.

Table 5. Rate of staffers becoming lobbyists, by selected positions

CONCLUSIONS

The revolving door continues to spin. Since July 2009, almost 400 individuals employed as House staffers at the time have left to become registered lobbyists, primarily working for lobbying firms, corporations, and business associations.In many respects, Congress continues to operate as a farm team for future lobbyists. Staff build up contacts and policy and political expertise. Then they often go “downtown” and cash in, taking their expertise and networks with them.

Though a certain flow of personnel from Congress to K Street is inevitable, Congress ought to do more to hold onto experienced staff. Recently, we explored retention rates among House staff, and we found that offices that paid their staff more had slightly higher retention rates, though Hill salaries lag behind private sector comparisons.When staff leave to lobby, their former offices must find somebody new and usually less experienced. And offices who lack staff with policy expertise and political relationships often must rely more on outside lobbyists, who are only too happy to fill the gap.For a complete list of all 378 staffers, what office they worked in, and where they went to lobby, click here.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA

These results are based on a comparison of House disbursement data from the third quarter of 2009 with public lobbying records. One challenge in conducting this analysis is that we are matching on names, and sometimes individuals register as lobbyists under different name permutations than they were listed on the Hill. We do our best to correct for this, but there are limitations. We also note that because certain names are more common than others, there is always the possibility of false positive matches.

Additionally, since our data on staff come from the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives, we are dependent on what the House reports. We must in good faith disclose that the underlying data are messy. At best, the data are approximate, and higher levels of confidence in it can only come when the House of Representatives makes a better effort with respect to how it normalizes and releases the data to the public. To dig through the data yourself, visit our House Expenditure Reports Database.

Special thanks to Daniel Schuman and Alison Rowland for their help on this analysis.

UPDATE: Jennifer Taylor, a legislative assistant in Rep. Pingree’s office, shares a name with Jennifer Taylor, a lobbyist at Van Scoyoc & Associates, resulting in a false positive. The text of this post has been corrected to reflect this. As noted above, our analysis is limited by the quality of the data published by the House disbursement reports and the Senate Office of Public Records. We regret the error and encourage anyone with clarifying information to contact us.

 

Politico: Super PACs: 2012′s campaign Godzillas

Written by admin on February 22nd, 2012

Republican super PACs are routinely raising or spending more money than the presidential candidates they are supporting, new filings show — a situation that just four years ago would have been equally bizarre and improbable.

Newt Gingrich’s campaign raised $5.6 million last month, according to new federal disclosures — a respectable amount until compared with the $11 million raised by the Winning Our Future super PAC that’s backing the former House speaker. Almost all of that $11 million came from two people.

Politico

The Restore Our Future super PAC supporting Mitt Romney likewise raised more money than Romney’s own campaign and finished January with more than twice the available cash: $16.3 million to $7.7 million.

And like Winning Our Future with Gingrich, the pro-Rick Santorum super PAC Red White and Blue Fund spent more in January than Santorum’s campaign did. The campaign committees of Santorum and Gingrich also have notable debt while their super PAC supporters report effectively none.

It’s enough to make Republican candidates a little green with super PAC envy, as recent federal court decisions have freed super PACs to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in overt support or opposition to candidates as long as they don’t directly coordinate with campaign committees.

Wealthy individuals and some corporate entities have responded in some cases by pouring hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars into the super PACs.

All the while, the candidates must continue to adhere to strict fundraising limits, prompting Romney to gripe in December that “we really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.”

But without the Restore Our Future super PAC, which is run by former Romney staffers, Romney would have missed out on more than $20.5 million worth of independent political expenditures that to date have almost exclusively skewered Gingrich, and lately, Santorum.

Compared with his Republican rivals, however, President Barack Obama is dogged by an entirely different super PAC concern.

The main super PAC supporting his reelection, Priorities USA Action, which is run by former Obama aides Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney — raised less than $59,000 in January.

Consider, now, that the GOP-supporting, Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads super PAC generated about $5 million last month — a crisp $100 for every $1.16 Priorities USA Action raised.

American Crossroads also boasts a cash reserve 20 times larger than that of Priorities USA Action.

Perhaps it’s no wonder, then, why Obama earlier this month personally blessed the work of the moribund super PAC, freeing campaign staff and Cabinet officials to aid it.

Obama’s decision also reflects a truth, for better or worse, about the nation’s new campaign finance rules: Even the free world’s leader couldn’t resist playing by them, no matter how politically unpalatable he finds them to be.

And Obama’s acceptance of Priorities USA Action will all but assuredly pay him cash dividends and buy parity with other super PACs, even if it cost him a self-styled perch on the campaign finance landscape’s high ground.

 

The Hill: Lobbyists decertify after Obama ban

Written by admin on February 18th, 2012

More than 20 members of federal advisory committees canceled their registrations as lobbyists after the Obama administration banned K Street from the panels in 2009, according to a review by The Hill.

The Hill

The Hill compared the membership rosters of 16 Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) with lobbying disclosure records and found at least 22 of the panels’ more than 300 members canceled their lobbyist registrations after the White House policy was announced.

Overall, roughly 58 of those serving on the ITACs were registered to lobby at some point

Critics said the move by many to deregister shows the administration’s policy is flawed and encourages lobbyists to move into the shadows. 

Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, called the number of formerly registered lobbyists serving on committees “shocking, [but] not surprising.”

“These are people who I presume are experts in their field who have something to contribute and want to contribute, and the only way they can do that is by deregistering,” said Marlowe, also president of lobby firm Marlowe & Co. “I presume that they haven’t all gone into the priesthood.”

The number of formerly registered lobbyists serving on federal advisory panels is likely much larger. The Hill’s review focused on only 16 panels, but there are approximately 1,000 advisory committees in the federal government, according to the General Services Administration.

Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), any individual who spends 20 percent of his or her time lobbying for a client is required to register with the Senate. He or she also needs to make contact with at least two covered government officials to meet the registration threshold.

President Obama’s attempt to limit lobbyist influence in his administration has largely focused on people who are registered, although that standard only covers some of the people who work in the influence industry.

Lobbyists angered by the ban who once served on ITACs are suing the Obama administration and asking a court to declare the prohibition “unconstitutional.” 

A White House spokesman said Obama has worked hard to slow the revolving door between the government and private sector. He cited an executive order from the president that prohibited lobbyist gifts, clamped down on the hiring of lobbyists by the administration and prevented appointees from lobbying the White House after working there.

“Our goal has been to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington — which we’ve done more than any administration in history,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz.

After the advisory committee ban was announced, Norm Eisen, then the White House ethics czar, said he would find it “disturbing” if lobbyists canceled their registrations to stay on the panels.

“I would hope that industry representatives would not seek to circumvent the rules in order to retain their preferred position on these bodies,” Eisen wrote in an Oct. 21, 2009, letter responding to ITAC leaders.  

Lobbyists who canceled their registrations and remained on ITACs gave different reasons for their decisions. Some said they changed how they went about their jobs to stay on the committees, while others said they were never lobbyists and had only registered out of caution. Many said their work on the advisory committees was too valuable for their companies to give up.

David Logsdon, executive director of TechAmerica’s Space Enterprise Council, said he altered his work to focus on public policy events and forums instead of meetings with congressional aides.

“The work on industry trade advisory committee at the Department of Commerce has allowed my clients’ positions on issues to be elevated to the key decisionmakers at the Department of Commerce that make the decisions on that industry of trade,” said Logsdon, who first registered in 2004.

Intel’s Greg Slater, who first registered to lobby in 2007, said the company moved general trade issues “that don’t require a lot of content expertise, such as expressing support for trade agreements,” to other internal and external lobbyists for the company so he could continue serving on a panel. Before that, he rarely spent 20 percent of his time lobbying, he added.

Barry Solarz, senior vice president of trade and economic policy at the American Iron and Steel Institute, was registered out of “an abundance of caution,” said Kevin Dempsey, the trade group’s senior vice president of policy and general counsel.

Having first registered in 1999, Solarz has served on an ITAC since 2003 — “an integral part of his job,” Dempsey said — so the trade group reviewed Solarz’s lobbying activities in the fall of 2009 and found that he had not “been engaged in any significant lobbying recently.”

The business association then restructured Solarz’s job to “ensure that he would not cross the line into lobbying going forward.”

“Having somebody [on the ITAC] who understands how steel products could be affected by proposed trade rules is very important for us to make sure that the new trade rules don’t negatively affect our industry,” Dempsey said.

Richard Holwill, vice president of public policy for Alticor, said he, too, registered to lobby out of caution. Since the ban has been announced, Holwill said, he keeps “a meticulous record” of whom he talks to and limits his contact with government officials to avoid hitting the registration threshold. 

“I lobby, but I lobby foreign government officials,” said Holwill, who serves on an ITAC. “These officials are not covered by the LDA, and the Obama administration does not object to this type of lobbying.”

Others said they were never lobbyists and had been registered in error. Though a member of an ITAC, Tom St. Maxens, president of St. Maxens & Co., was still registered to lobby last quarter for the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.

“That was my mistake,” said Bill Sells, vice president of government relations for the association. Sells said St. Maxens is a consultant on trade to the trade group and that he would amend lobbying filings going back to 2006 to correct the error.

“I put him down and went the extra mile. I over-disclosed,” Sells said. “He has never represented us before the federal government or a member of Congress. He advises me.”

Others said they registered under the LDA but never lobbied.

“I did register for some clients because I thought it was conceivable that I could reach the thresholds for them, but I never did,” said Sue Presti, president of Public Policy Resources and an ITAC member.

Presti, who had been registered to lobby sporadically since 2000, said she still has clients and is mindful of the ban.

“The nature of the work for my clients at the moment doesn’t require me to register,” Presti said. “I recognize in the future that things could change and I might have to.”

 

Politico: Super PACs echo parodies

Written by admin on February 14th, 2012

The law couldn’t be more clear: campaigns aren’t supposed to communicate strategy or coordinate spending with their super PAC supporters. And all the candidates claim they’re not doing anything wrong — Santorum insists super PACs don’t come up in his chats with Freiss, and representatives for Gingrich, Romney and Obama all say they’re not breaking the rules either.

It looks like they’ll get the last laugh, since there’s no sign of serious legal or technical challenges to the brazen behavior that might force campaigns or super PACs to reverse course before Election Day.

Politico

When it comes to super PACs, it’s getting hard to tell the difference between reality and a Comedy Central bit.

Stephen Colbert made an ongoing gag last month out of lampooning the rules barring coordination between outside groups and campaigns. When he announced a plan to run for president, he made a big show of handing off his super PAC to his fellow Comedy Central host Jon Stewart. Stewart promised not to coordinate with Colbert — giving the camera a wink and a nod.

But it was no joke last week when President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney cleared their top aides to raise cash for the super PACs supporting their campaign.

Meanwhile, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, whose family has pumped $11 million into the super PAC boosting Newt Gingrich’s campaign, sat in on a meeting of the campaign’s national finance committee at one of his Las Vegas hotels this month. He also met privately with both Gingrich and Romney.

And Rick Santorum took the podium at the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend after a warm introduction from his friend Foster Friess, a Wyoming multimillionaire who’s given hundreds of thousands of dollars to two super PACs credited with Santorum’s surge.

Friess has become part of Santorum’s campaign inner circle, traveling with the candidate on the trail and participating in sensitive conversations about campaign advertising. Santorum told reporters last week that Friess is “someone who I talk to, who gives me plenty of advice on how I say it and what I say.”

The law couldn’t be more clear: campaigns aren’t supposed to communicate strategy or coordinate spending with their super PAC supporters. And all the candidates claim they’re not doing anything wrong — Santorum insists super PACs don’t come up in his chats with Freiss, and representatives for Gingrich, Romney and Obama all say they’re not breaking the rules either.

It looks like they’ll get the last laugh, since there’s no sign of serious legal or technical challenges to the brazen behavior that might force campaigns or super PACs to reverse course before Election Day.

“It sounds to me as if the current – admittedly inadequate – rules are being bent or broken, especially when persons responsible for [super PAC ads] are also traveling with the candidates and/or advising them,” said Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who was the top lawyer for John McCain’s Republican presidential campaigns, which discouraged outside spending groups.

It’s a bit of life imitating art for Potter, who has been participating in the ongoing Colbert-Stewart gag on their late-night shows. Colbert’s faux pundit character has talked about the “loopchasms” in the coordination restrictions and it’s not hard to imagine him devising a scenario like the Friess-Santorum talks.

While the coordination ban has been in effect for years, it’s gotten a lot more attention since a pair of 2010 federal court decisions created super PACs, allowing them to take unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions. The major limitation, as reinforced in the first decision, Citizens United vs. FEC, is that outside group ads “by definition” cannot be “coordinated with a candidate.”  The FEC in June issued an opinion making clear that election rules don’t prohibit candidates or their campaigns from helping super PACs fundraise within pre-existing limits.

And last summer, Romney appeared at multiple fundraisers for the super PAC supporting him, while Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi have availed themselves of the FEC decision to boost super PAC fundraising pushes.

Santorum’s campaign hasn’t discussed dispatching representatives to help its super PAC raise money, said a source familiar with the outside group. And, while Gingrich’s campaign is considering assisting the fundraising of a supportive super PAC, it has yet to do so, though the pro-Gingrich group, like the ones boosting Obama and Romney, is run by former close associates of the candidate.

The super PACs are like the “the evil twin of the candidate’s campaign committee,” FEC vice chairman Ellen Weintraub told POLITICO. “We really do not know whether this is at all what the courts had in mind when they opened the door to independent spending committees with no contribution limits.”

Obama had blasted such outside groups as a distortion of democracy and he particularly criticized non-profit groups that – unlike super PACs – do not disclose their donors. So Republicans hit him for hypocrisy last week when he bowed to political reality and cleared his top campaign and administration officials to help raise money for Priorities USA Action, the struggling super PAC set up to boost his campaign.

While it had received $215,000 from an affiliated non-disclosing non-profit group called Priorities USA, the groups quietly moved on Friday to segregate their finances in an effort to shield Obama from additional criticism. Because of “all the questions that were raised about it, we just wanted to eliminate any sense that there was a co-mingling that made people uncomfortable,” Bill Burton, the groups’ founder, told POLITICO.

The super PAC is still trying to figure out how it will work with Obama aides to raise money within the rules, Burton said. The super PAC’s January fundraising haul – which will be disclosed in a report due next week – will not show the benefits of the Obama blessing and will be “a pretty small number,” said Burton, who worked as a top aide to Obama on the 2008 campaign and in the White House.

It’s partly ties like Burton’s that have watchdogs and rival operatives accusing campaigns and super PACs of flouting the coordination ban. They point out, for instance, that the super PAC supporting Romney is being run in part by a fundraiser who came on board directly from the campaign and a lawyer whose wife continues to work for the campaign.

Likewise, opponents clucked their tongues when Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s since-aborted presidential campaign produced an ad using video footage shot by the super PAC and when POLITICO reported that billionaire industrialist Jon Huntsman, Sr., was both communicating daily with his son’s now-defunct presidential campaign and funding the super PAC supporting it.

Perhaps the most extreme cross-pollination between a campaign and a super PAC is the case of Friess, a 71-year old retired mutual fund manager. Through the end of last year, he had donated $381,000 to a pair of super PACs that buoyed Santorum with ads and robo-calls at a time when his campaign lacked the resources for such important expenditures.

The two men campaigned together nearly around-the-clock in the days before Santorum’s victory in January’s Iowa caucuses and his sweep of last week’s contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. During Santorum’s victory speeches in both instances, Friess stood beaming on stage behind the former Pennsylvania senator. Then on Friday, it was Friess at the podium at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, introducing Santorum as “a dear friend” and “the next president of the United States.”

Behind the scenes, Friess has been even more important to Santorum’s effort.

Days after influential Iowa conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats gave his coveted endorsement to Santorum in the run-up to his state’s caucuses, his organization established Leaders For Families Super PAC, which quickly took in $125,000 – almost all of its cash – from Friess, and a pro-Santorum super PAC called the Red, White and Blue Fund, for which Friess is the biggest donor.

Leaders For Families used the cash to air radio and television ads and place automated telephone calls touting the endorsement from Vander Plaats, who had reportedly told Santorum he “needed money to promote the endorsement.”

The Vander Plaats endorsement and promotion thereof “was world changing,” Friess told POLITICO.

And though Friess said he’s asked Red, White and Blue Fund not to use his cash on negative ads, and suggested he’d like its ads to focus on Santorum’s work against Islamic extremism, he said he has nothing to do with the super PAC’s advertising strategy.

“I just send the money in and those guys take care of the ads,” he said. On the other hand, he has actively worked to boost the Red, White and Blue Fund’s fundraising, telling POLITICO he tried to convince Adelson to support Santorum and also planned to solicit donations from donors linked to the libertarian billionaire industrialist Koch brothers. Their most recent gathering of major donors, held late last month in Indian Wells, Calif. was attended by both Adelson and Friess.

“There isn’t a person at the Koch brothers events who would not get a good return on their investment by investing in [Santorum] as president, because of what they believe about the free enterprise system,” said Friess.

But, Friess said, he leaves all the super PAC business at the door when he’s with Santorum. “All my lawyer tells me is, to avoid any problems, don’t even mention the super PAC.”

Pressed last week on how he could travel with Friess, given his relationship to the super PAC, Santorum told reporters, “We know what the rules are, and the bottom line is, I don’t think it crosses a line whatsoever. He’s a friend, he’s been a friend for many, many years and has traveled with me in the past before it was a super PAC.” When the issue of Friess’s work on behalf of the super PAC came up again a couple days later, Santorum asserted, “I have no idea what Foster Friess is doing to my super PAC. That’s his business.”

Yet Friess has been privy to sensitive campaign business, including fundraising figures, and a private conversation this month between Santorum and Gingrich, who complained that his positions were distorted by a pair of Santorum campaign ads.

“Newt just came up and said that’s not true and it would be great if you could change that,” said Friess.

Adelson, meanwhile, this month huddled at his Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with Gingrich, his campaign staff and other big donors for the finance committee meeting. He also held separate private meetings with Gingrich and Romney. Afterwards, Bloomberg News reported that Adelson intended to cut off the flow of cash to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future.

Adelson has had no formal role in campaign strategy talks, and he and his wife Miriam Adelson stopped by the finance meeting only long enough to hear Gingrich speak before leaving, said a source close to the couple.

The source dismissed the Bloomberg report, explaining Adelson has not made it known whether he intends to continue contributing to Winning Our Future, and would not be influenced in his decision by pressure from other donors or candidates.

Winning Our Future has gone quiet after spending millions on tough ads criticizing Romney’s record at the private equity firm he helmed – an attack Gingrich at first embraced, then backed away from.

The coordination rules make “it much more difficult for the super PAC to do a positive ad for the candidate, since they cannot discuss with the candidate what issues they would like for advertising to address,” said Jim Bopp, a leading GOP campaign finance attorney. “It is easier to do a negative ad on the opponent since consistency of message is not as important there,” said Bopp, a Romney supporter who has advised the former Massachusetts governor on campaign finance policy.

Bopp’s proposal for merged candidate-super PAC fundraising led to the FEC opinion clearing such fundraising, and he suggested he might consider challenging the coordination rules “if I had a client” with a strong case.

“I think the FEC’s coordination rules are very strict, more strict than allowed by the First Amendment,” said Bopp. Rejecting the allegations that the coordination rules are easily circumvented, Bopp asserted campaigns and super PACs are paying close attention to the letter of the law because “the penalties for violation are very severe” and “an investigation is very onerous and burdensome.”

 

Fox News: Battle of the billionaires — Super PACs offer chance for high rollers to sway 2012 race

Written by admin on February 12th, 2012

Fox News joins the mainstream media in recognizing the flow of campaign money from a select group of wealthy individuals.

Fox News

If the American presidential system were boiled down into a Las Vegas casino game, “Super PAC” betting would be placed exclusively in the high-stakes room. 

The Super PAC system, a product of recent Supreme Court rulings, allows unlimited donations for political causes. And recent federal disclosure forms reveal the people behind them are the whales of the campaign trail — putting up donations frequently in excess of a quarter-million dollars. 

For the first time, voters are getting a glimpse at who’s funding the previously opaque organizations boosting the presidential candidates’ campaigns with outside spending. 

Mitt Romney, not surprisingly, has a slew of investment titans — including former colleagues at Bain Capital — pumping money into the Super PAC supporting his campaign. Newt Gingrich enjoys high-powered support out of Vegas. Ron Paul is being indirectly funded by the co-founder of PayPal. Rick Santorum’s Super PAC is backed mostly by two people. And President Obama’s Super PAC is kept well-heeled by Hollywood and union support

The nature of the donations is a world apart from the traditional campaign finance of presidential campaigns themselves — for which individual donations are capped at $2,500. 

In the world of Super PACs, $2,500 makes for a modest starting point. Donors routinely put up $100,000 and up in support of the campaign committee of their choice. And a relatively small number of high-dollar contributors are involved. 

No Super PAC better exemplifies the unbound financial potential of the new system than Romney’s group Restore Our Future

According to end-of-year filings with Federal Election Commission, the pro-Romney committee has raised more than $30 million, from just 282 donors. The average donation tops $100,000, and the fund is backed by plenty of high-rollers. 

At the top are donors like Robert Mercer, an executive at hedge fund firm Renaissance Technologies; John Paulson, president of hedge fund Paulson and Co.; Julian Robertson, founder of hedge fund Tiger Management; Paul Singer, founder of Elliott Management Corp.; and Edward Conard, a former Bain colleague. All put up $1 million apiece. 

J.W. Marriott Jr., chairman of Marriott International, also contributed $500,000, as did Richard Marriott, chief of Marriott offshoot Host Hotels & Resorts. 

By law, these campaign committees cannot coordinate with the presidential campaigns themselves or directly fund them. This catch explains why, when Romney and other candidates are challenged on Super PAC-funded ads, they note that their campaigns had nothing to do with the production. 

But they are surely aware, and the Super PACs serve a blunt purpose. 

According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, Restore Our Future has spent $17 million in opposition to Gingrich – in large part through advertising. 

The other Super PACs don’t have nearly as much money, but nevertheless serve as a potent tool for the candidates. 

Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group, has been backed by Texas businessman Harold Simmons. The group reported raising over $2 million at the end of the year, from just 18 people

More recently, and subsequent to the 2011 filing period, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson drew headlines for putting up $5 million for the Gingrich Super PAC. His wife reportedly followed suit with another $5 million. 

In Paul’s corner is the Endorse Liberty group, which reported about $1 million raised for 2011. The group is supported almost exclusively by Peter Thiel, a hedge fund manager who co-founded PayPal. 

Santorum’s Red White and Blue Fund has raised slightly less than Paul’s Super PAC. That, too, is backed by a handful of supporters, including wealthy investor Foster Friess and John Templeton Jr., son of philanthropist John Templeton. 

And the pro-Obama Priorities USA Super PAC has raised a total of $4.4 million as of the end of 2011. About half of that came in the form of a $2 million donation from DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Steven Spielberg also threw in $100,000

Those five groups are just a slice of the national Super PAC pie, though they account for much of the money raised. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 318 groups have raised nearly $99 million as of early February. They’ve spent nearly $47 million in the 2012 cycle. 

The campaign finance free-for-all has raised pressing questions all along about whether the new system is a boon for free speech — speech, that is, in the form of monetary donations and ads — or a barrier for candidates who might not have the behind-the-scenes support of such wealth

Gingrich, despite the support of his Las Vegas benefactors, has complained that the glut of negative advertising by Romney’s supporters has damaged his candidacy. 

In Congress, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and others are pushing for a new bill that would, among other provisions, require TV ads to name top donors. 

Yet Obama’s campaign this past week seemed to embrace the new Super PAC reality. The campaign said Obama officials would speak at Priorities USA events. 

Romney reportedly has sanctioned the same kind of interaction.