1 Boring Old Man

Voters are in the dark on campaign spending
Washington Post
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
October 25, 2010

^{Imagine an election in a Third World nation where a small number of millionaires and billionaires spent massive sums to push the outcome in their preferred direction. Wouldn’t many people here condescendingly tut-tut over such a country’s "poorly developed" sense of democracy and the inadequacy of its political system? That, of course, is what is going on in our country as you read this. If you travel any place where there is a contested House or Senate race, you are bombarded with attack ads, almost all against Democrats, paid for by groups that do not have to reveal where their money comes from. What we do know from enterprising journalism and the limited disclosure the law requires is that much of this money is donated in large sums from a rather small number of wealthy individuals.}

^{And the New York Times reported Friday that among the 10 top-spending organizations this year, five are Republican-oriented shadow groups. Four others are both parties’ formal committees for House and Senate candidates. One is a union. This is a huge, historic deal, yet many in the media have treated the spending avalanche as a normal political story and arguments about its dangers as partisan Democratic whining…}

^{Nonetheless, the partisan dimension should not distract from the larger problem facing American democracy. Secret money is dangerous. Secret money corrupts. Secret money is antithetical to the transparency that democracy requires. And concentrated money, which is what we’re talking about here, buys more influence and access than small contributions. Candidates have limits on the size of the donations they can raise and must disclose them. They are accountable for the advertisements they put on the air. But the outside groups can say whatever they want without answering for it. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent has been tireless in pointing out how many of the ads sponsored by these shadowy organizations are based on half-truths or outright lies…}

^{By contrast, much of the outside Republican money this year is being raised under a different part of the tax code [and under shamelessly loose Federal Election Commission rules], so the money coming in doesn’t have to be disclosed. We also have the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which vastly increased the ability of corporations to influence elections. If you still think this outside secret money is just the Democrats’ problem, consider the views of Charles Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development, a venerable business group. Kolb, who served in the Reagan administration, thinks all this secret money is bad for both democracy and business because it undermines public confidence that the government and the marketplace are on the level.}

^{"An election is a public good, not a private exchange," he says. "If I want to buy a car from you, that’s an exchange between you and me." But elections "are not a private commodity, candidates aren’t private commodities." That’s right: Elections are there to be won, not bought…}

How Crossroads fueled secret giving
Politico
by Kenneth P. Vogel
10/25/2010

^{When it comes to the anonymous contributions fueling the tens of millions of dollars in advertising this year boosting Republican candidates, you could say that American Crossroads was against them before it was for them. Early this year, when an elite team of GOP operatives rolled out plans for the group and a linked network of other independent conservative organizations, they enthusiastically embraced the idea of public disclosure of donors, in part because of a professed commitment to transparency. “I’m a proponent of lots of money in politics and full disclosure in politics,” Mike Duncan, an American Crossroads board member, said in May during a panel discussion focusing partly on Republican plans for outside group spending in the midterm elections in the wake of a January Supreme Court decision allowing more corporate spending with less transparency.}

^{American Crossroads, the non-profit group Duncan helps lead with assistance from Bush-era operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, had recently registered under a section of the tax code – 527 – that requires regular disclosure of its donors, primarily because of its founders’ commitment to “full accountability” and “transparency,” explained Duncan, a former Republican National Committee chairman. During the panel, Duncan recalled “when we had the board discussion, we talked about the fact that we were going to be ahead of the curve on this."}

^{But, less than one month after the panel, with American Crossroads entering its fourth month of existence struggling to raise money from donors leery of having their names disclosed, the Crossroads operatives spun off a sister group called Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (or Crossroads GPS, for short), which they registered under a different section of the tax code – section 501(c)4 – that does not require donor disclosure.}

^{With the Crossroads fundraising team, led by Rove, emphasizing to prospective donors the ability to give to Crossroads GPS anonymously, fundraising took off. Through Oct. 12, more than 57 percent of the $56 million raised by the two groups had come through anonymous donations to Crossroads GPS, according to an analysis by POLITICO of Crossroads public statements and records on file with the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service.}

^{The success Crossroads has had in attracting anonymous donors highlights a broader trend on the right in which political activity has increasingly shifted to non-profit corporations that can conceal donors’ identities. Republican finance insiders interviewed for this story say it is easier to get major GOP donors to contribute when there’s no risk of having their identities disclosed and being subjected to either additional appeals for money from other groups, or to criticism from President Barack Obama and other Democrats…}

Rove: Obama a hypocrite on secret money
Politico Live
October 24, 2010

^{Republican strategist Karl Rove charged Sunday that President Barack Obama and other Democrats complaining about millions of dollars in undisclosed donations to GOP-friendly groups are guilty of hypocrisy. "The president of the United States had no problem at all when Democrats did this," Rove said on CBS’s "Face the Nation." "It was not a threat to Democrats when it helped get him elected." "Liberal groups with 501[c][4]’s have been using undisclosed money for years and years and years and years," Rove said, referring to the tax code provision under which many of the groups are organized. "Once we copied what the liberals did, the liberals got upset. … Suddenly, everybody’s gotten spun up about it this year."}

^{In his TV appearance, Rove also wielded a copy of the disclosure report from AFSCME, a government employees union that’s expected to be the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections, and noted that the union doesn’t disclose who funds its political program. [The money comes primarily from union dues, but individual union members are not listed in the reports.]}

^{When showed a clip of himself from 2004 denouncing outside groups and suggesting they should be banned, Rove said he shouldn’t be faulted for working under the same rules others are. "It is what it is. The choice is whether you fight the battle with one arm tied behind your back or not," said Rove…}