|
|||
|
In the Gusher of Super PACs, Even One Named ‘The Internet’Posted on Jan 21, 2012
By Kim Barker, Politico This piece originally appeared at ProPublica. Sure, there’s the GOP symbol, but the real elephant in the room at any of the Republican debates since December has been the super PAC, the turbocharged political action committee able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads — as long as that spending isn’t coordinated with a particular campaign. Mitt Romney supporters used Restore Our Future to tank Newt Gingrich in Iowa, while Gingrich supporters relied on Winning Our Future for revenge in South Carolina. Jon Huntsman’s campaign would probably not have lasted as long as it did without Our Destiny. Now that Rick Perry is out of the race, throwing his support to Gingrich, the real question is what will happen to the war chest of Make Us Great Again. But those are just the super PACs you’ve already heard about — the ones that candidates grouse about at debates, with Romney calling one Winning Our Future ad that portrayed him as a corporate raider “probably the biggest hoax since Bigfoot.” Advertisement So far, at least 283 super PACs have registered, although 60 are run by one Florida man, Josue Larose, and seem to serve no other purpose but piling up paperwork for the FEC. And so far, super PACs have spent more than $29 million on the presidential race. (You can follow the money with our PAC Track application.) Although it’s not yet clear how that compares with overall spending by the candidates themselves, reports indicated that super PAC spending in Iowa outstripped the candidates’ by 2-to-1, said Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center. More spending, likely the most ever in an election season, is on the horizon. And even though some super PACs seem to be parodies (like comedian Stephen Colbert’s Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, which has probably done more to deliver “super PAC” into the American lexicon than any politician), the groups insist they are real. “There’s all kinds of games going on,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit pushing to rein in super PACs. “Some group has put up a website telling you how to get around disclosure. Look, we have huge problems on our hands, and we get to celebrate the cause of many of these problems on Jan. 21, the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision. We have to deal with them as best we can.” Here’s a rundown of some new super PACs and examples of how confusing things can get: The Patriot Super PAC, which registered with the FEC on Tuesday, boasts a website promising to be the “future home of something quite cool.” It will work to defeat President Barack Obama, but it shouldn’t be confused with the conservative Patriot PAC, which promises to be the “point of the spear” and asks people to sign a petition without providing the text. Nor should either be mistaken for the Patriot Majority USA PAC, which supports Senate Democrats. Protecting Our Vote PAC registered on Jan. 13, with one of the best signatures in any super PAC filing. Its mission is unclear: The website simply says, Protecting Our Vote PAC. American Sunrise registered as a super PAC the same day, organized in part by Lora Haggard, the former chief financial officer for onetime Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Citizens for Prosperity and Good Government, not to be confused with the nonprofit conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, registered on Jan. 10. Some people registering super PACs appear to be confused themselves. Patricia McBride of Wasco, Calif., registered Citizens Fireup Super PAC on Jan. 9 to support or oppose Obama but neglected to say which angle she’ll take. McBride also wrote that she wished to establish the super PAC as a (c4), which is shorthand for a 501(c)4, the IRS code for a social-welfare nonprofit. Although 501(c)4s are allowed to make certain political expenditures, they are not allowed to be super PACs. Regardless, the FEC appears to have registered the group.
New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By gerard, January 22 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
Thank you, novenator. Very helpful.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 22 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
Good post novenator.
This whole abomination came from the right and the crazy right wing supremes put in place by the rich right wingers. There’s nothing conservative about it. It is extremism, and it is run by rich psychopaths. Our democracy will be gone completely if the Republicans get control of the reins of power, it’s bad enough already…... look what they are doing in the House. Republicans are outright criminals and are treasonous to democracy.
They continue their unabashed, criminal power grab:
“Democracy is on life support in America. And now the Republican National Committee wants to drive the last nail into its coffin. With Citizens United, the only remaining limit is that corporations and the wealthy cannot donate unlimited monies directly to the candidates, but must give it to committees (PACS). The PACs are required to be independent from candidates and cannot coordinate their activities or advertising with the candidate. This rule is somehow supposed to avoid the obvious quid pro quo corruption. Now, the Republican National Committee doesn’t see the need for such a silly pretense.
On January 10, 2012, the RNC filed a brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the 1907 law banning corporations from giving money directly to candidates. The RNC claims the law is unconstitutional, stating: “The complete ban both is over-inclusive to this aim and artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees,” they wrote. “It is over-inclusive because it bans all corporate donations without regard to the ability of corporate donors to attribute their donations to individuals.”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318264#ixzz1kCgWEe4M
Think the Koch Brothers, Bob Perry….. etc. Criminals.
Report thisBy novenator, January 21 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
Truthdig really does some excellent investigation work. Here’s some supplemental info on this: Gaze Into the Exploding Universe of Dark Money
Report thishttp://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/super-pacs-501-c-groups-chart