Michael Beckel stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Pro-Rand Paul super PAC's name may violate law

2013-05-22T14:56:53-04:00

Supporters of Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have launched “Rand PAC 2016.” But because the super PAC uses the potential presidential candidate’s first name, this action may violate federal law.

Three Hillary Clinton-themed super PACs established earlier this year could also find themselves in the same situation. Since, however, the former secretary of state is not officially a candidate for president or any other federal office, they are on safe ground — for now anyway.

Paul, on the other hand, has raised more than $600,000 for his 2016 re-election to the U.S. Senate, including $457,000 during the first quarter of 2013, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Federal law, in most cases, only permits political committees authorized by a candidate to use that candidate’s name — which super PACs, by definition, are not.

The regulations, though, are unclear about whether the use of a partial name would trigger a change.

This would be “a good area for the FEC to clarify its own rules,” Paul S. Ryan, an attorney at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told the Center for Public Integrity.

An FEC spokesman directed questions to the agency’s chairman and vice chairman, who could not immediately be reached for comment.

The FEC typically sends a letter to a super PAC if it uses a candidate’s name. For example, during the 2012 GOP presidential primaries, the super PAC “Americans for Rick Perry” ran afoul of the rule and changed its name to “Restoring Prosperity Fund.”

Brandon Edwards — the 27-year-old, self-described libertarian from California who is the chairman of the newly created Rand PAC 2016 — said that if his group were asked to change its name by the FEC, “that would be no problem.”

Edwards said his group does not want to be seen as “leaching off" Paul's name.

“That’s definitely not the goal of this,” he added. “The goal is to become active with the community, find other like-minded people and help spread the message of liberty.”

Another pro-Paul group may face a similar predicament. It christened itself the "Stand with Rand PAC" when it registered in March as a hybrid super PAC.

A hybrid super PAC can operate one bank account fueled by limited contributions to dole out money to candidates — plus a second account funded by unlimited donations that are used to produce political advertisements.

Bill Willenbrock, Stand with Rand PAC's treasurer, said his group had not been asked to change its name by the FEC, adding that he was "not aware that Ayn Rand was running for office," making reference to the deceased author, a libertarian icon.

The super PAC’s website features a photo of the Kentucky senator above the assertion that it exists to “support candidates like Rand Paul who stand up for the Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights.”

In a previous interview with the Center for Public Integrity, Willenbrock said his group planned to support Paul as well as "other candidates who stand for liberty," such as Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah.

In January, several notable Clinton supporters formed a super PAC called “Ready for Hillary PAC,” as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

The super PAC has not yet been required to report any fundraising to the FEC, but Democratic heavyweights such as strategist James Carville and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm have already made pitches for the group.

“We are aware of this federal regulation,” said Jim Lamb, Ready for Hillary's general counsel. "If Hillary decides to run and becomes a candidate, we will continue to be in compliance with this regulation."

Clinton supporters have also created an Iowa-based group called "Hillary Clinton Super PAC" and a California-based super PAC called "Hillary FTW," an acronym standing for "for the win."

Further confusing the issue, political committees designed to specifically oppose a candidate are granted an exemption from the rules governing names.

Case in point: the “Stop Hillary PAC” registered with the FEC last week as a hybrid super PAC. Similarly, the “Retire Pryor” super PAC has spent about $10,000 opposing the re-election of incumbent Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark, who will face voters in 2014.

The only other exception to the naming restriction is for groups that seek to “draft” a candidate to run for office. These groups must also “clearly indicate” that they are “a draft committee,” according to federal law.

Like super PACs, draft committees need not abide by the strict contribution limits faced by candidate’s own committees.

IRS rarely denies 'social welfare' applications

2013-05-20T17:37:11-04:00

During its past four fiscal years, the Internal Revenue Service has formally denied the applications of just 60 organizations seeking recognition under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code as “social welfare” groups.

In the same period, the agency processed 8,214 applications and approved 6,837 of them — about 83 percent, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of IRS data.

Sometimes applications were neither approved nor denied, meaning groups could still be awaiting recognition of tax-exempt status or still be providing the IRS with additional information. They may also have withdrawn their applications.

The IRS's approval processes have come under fire following an inspector general report that found IRS employees used “inappropriate criteria” to discern which organizations’ applications warranted additional scrutiny.

The IRS’s 2012 fiscal year, which covered the period between Oct. 1, 2011, and Sept. 30, 2012, saw a surge of new applications under Section 501(c)(4). During that period, 2,774 groups sought recognition as “social welfare” nonprofits, as the Center for Public Integrity has previously reported.

That represented an increase of more than 56 percent from fiscal year 2011 — and an increase of nearly 86 percent from fiscal year 2008.

The IRS processed 23,722 applications for 501(c)(4) nonprofit status between fiscal years 2001 and 2012, records indicate.

The agency approved roughly 77 percent of those, while rejecting less than three-tenths of one percent: 66 denials versus 18,214 approvals, albeit in fiscal year 2008 the IRS did not report how many groups it denied “to avoid disclosure of specific taxpayer data.”

Before the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday, Steven Miller, who served as the agency’s commissioner until he resigned last week, testified that IRS did not have “sufficient personnel” to process all of the applications its tax-exempt unit has received.

Both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are planning hearings on the topic this week.

Funds from Adelson-backed super PAC boost Georgia nonprofit

Georgia,United States — 2013-05-20T01:24:29-04:00

One of the largest super PACs active in Virginia’s high-profile U.S. Senate race last year has ceased operations and transferred its leftover funds to a Georgia-based nonprofit — though what the group plans to do with the money is unclear.

Rise and Shine America, Inc., the Georgia nonprofit, is organized as a “social welfare” organization under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. It received nearly $42,000 on April 30 from Independence Virginia PAC, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Ahead of the 2012 election, Independence Virginia PAC spent approximately $5 million attempting to boost Republican George Allen in his unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid against Democrat Tim Kaine.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson accounted for $4 million of the group’s $5.2 million in receipts. Adelson was the top donor to super PACs during the 2012 election cycle, when he, along with his relatives, contributed more than $93 million to GOP-aligned super PACs.

Independence Virginia PAC’s donation to Rise and Shine America was first reported by Roll Call’s Kent Cooper, who posited that the funds might be used in connection with the state's upcoming U.S. Senate election.

However, Doug Chalmers, the attorney for Rise and Shine America, Inc., told the Center for Public Integrity that the nonprofit “does not intend to be involved in the Georgia U.S. Senate race.”

“We're not sure how that story got started, but it's pure speculation and incorrect,” he wrote in an email to the Center for Public Integrity.

Chalmers declined to specify how the money would be put to use.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss announced that he will not seek re-election, sparking a flurry of interest from Georgia Republicans who are eyeing the seat including three sitting U.S. House members, Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston.

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Rise and Shine America describes its mission as “protecting conservative values” such as “limited government” and “fiscal responsibility.”

Harry “Chip” Lake III, a former aide to Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., serves as Rise and Shine America’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer and secretary, according to business records filed with the state of Georgia.

The super PAC’s five-figure donation nearly equals the nonprofit’s entire budget during its first year of existence.

Rise and Shine America, which was formed in July 2011, raised $50,000 during its first year, according to a new tax filing obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

As of June 30, 2012, at the end of its first fiscal year, the nonprofit listed assets of $340 with liabilities of $2,000 — leaving it $1,660 in the red.

There is at least one definitive link between Rise and Shine America and Independence Virginia PAC: Republican political consultant Paul Bennecke.

Bennecke was the treasurer of the Virginia-based super PAC. He is also listed as a director of Rise and Shine America on its IRS annual report.

Bennecke, a former executive director of Georgia’s Republican Party and former political director of the Republican Governors Association, could not be reached for comment.

Do nonprofits' names imply political activity?

2013-05-20T15:52:05-04:00

Trevor Potter — a Republican lawyer and president of the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for stronger campaign finance regulations — says that the Internal Revenue Service is right to be on the lookout for organizations with a “significant amount of political activity.”

“What they are trying to do is identify groups that intend to be politically active, which is the appropriate thing for them to do,” he told the Center for Public Integrity, adding an important caveat.

“It seems to me, personally, that using the name is a pretty weak indicia,” he continued.

There are about 90,000 organizations recognized by the IRS as "social welfare" nonprofits under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code.

Most don't have politically charged names, but scores do.

For instance, there are 20 social welfare nonprofits with the word "Democrat" in their name, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of IRS data. Meanwhile, 18 social welfare nonprofits include the word "Republican" in theirs.

Twenty-one organizations use the word "conservative," while 31 use the word "progressive."

Sixty-nine social welfare nonprofits include the word "campaign" in their names. Just three use the word "politics."

Words such as "America" and "veterans" are far more commonly used by 501(c)(4) organizations, as our word cloud illustrates.

According to a recently released inspector general report, the buzzwords “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12” were used by IRS employees to flag potentially political cases.

Only two social welfare nonprofits with any of those buzzwords in their names reported any political spending to the Federal Election Commission, as the Center for Public Integrity today reported. One was Republican-aligned and one was Democratic-aligned.

Methodological note: This graphic was constructed based on a Center for Public Integrity analysis of organizations listed in the IRS business master file that were recognized in 2012, omitting some common, generic words such as "association," "club" and "inc."

'Tea party' nonprofits rarely endorsed political candidates

2013-05-20T01:56:51-04:00

Tea party groups and other conservative nonprofits at the heart of a scandal rocking the Internal Revenue Service have, of late, largely avoided electoral politics, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission filings.

About five dozen groups with the buzzwords “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12” in their names have been officially recognized by the IRS as "social welfare" nonprofits under Section 501(c)(4) of U.S. tax code. There are about 90,000 such organizations.

But only two of the buzzword groups reported overtly advocating for or against political candidates during 2012, or even mentioning political candidates in broadcast advertisements immediately before primary or general elections.

And one of those is, in fact, unabashedly liberal.

Both groups, which use a version of "patriot" in their names, offer contrasting perspectives into the nebulous world of politically active nonprofits.

One of these is Patriotic Veterans, Inc, a Chicago-based organization launched in 2008. Conservative political consultant Paul Caprio serves as its president.

Patriotic Veterans told the FEC that it spent $86,700 on radio ads that mentioned Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Republican House candidate Adam Kinzinger of Illinois ahead of during the 2012 election.

IRS records show automated phone calls have also been a regular expense of the group.

In 2004, Caprio worked with John O’Neill, co-author of the controversial book Unfit for Command, to design a voter-contact program aimed at veterans highlighting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s “true record of service in Vietnam,” according to Caprio’s online biography.

An archived version of the group’s now-defunct website says its mission is “to inform voters of the positions taken by candidates and office holders on issues of interest to veterans.”

Only one other 501(c)(4) “patriot”-named nonprofit reported spending to the FEC during the 2012 election cycle: a liberal-aligned group called Patriot Majority USA.

Ahead of the 2012 election, Patriot Majority USA reported spending about $7.5 million to the FEC on political advertisements, most of them highly critical of Republicans.

Based in Washington, D.C., Patriot Majority USA was established in March 2011, after being spun-off from another operation.

The nonprofit is headed by strategist Craig Varoga, who has advised numerous Democratic candidates, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear. In 2010, political committees that were part of the Patriot Majority network spent millions on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who won a contentious re-election battle that year.

A 2011 filing with the IRS describes the nonprofit’s primary purpose as seeking to “encourage a discussion of economic issues in the United States in order to make America stronger and promote our country’s future economic prosperity.”

When it applied for tax-exempt status, the group told the IRS that its political spending would not exceed 40 percent of its annual budget, according to documents obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Patriot Majority USA has never publicly reported any of its funders.

When the FEC asked about the lack of information about donors, Patriot Majority USA’s counsel Ezra Reese said that the group, as a matter of policy, “does not accept contributions earmarked for a specific political purpose.”

Federal law only requires nonprofit groups to disclose the names of donors who earmark contributions for political advertisements — something donors rarely do.

Meanwhile, political committees — including super PACs, which, like nonprofits, are allowed to accept donations of unlimited size — are required to reveal all donors who give more than $200.

Neither Varoga nor Caprio responded to requests for comment.

Faced with an onslaught of new applications by organizations seeking tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code, IRS employees in 2010 developed a shorthand for cases they thought might merit additional scrutiny.

If words such as appeared in groups’ names, applications were flagged as potential political cases, according to a report released Tuesday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The rules for who can fund social welfare nonprofits’ political advocacy have been loosened in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

While 501(c)(4) nonprofits cannot primarily be in the business of influencing elections, they are legally allowed to call for the election or defeat of candidates. When they do, they must disclose their expenditures to the FEC — just as individuals, labor unions, business associations and corporations do.

They must also report expenditures related to ads that mention politicians shortly before an election, even if they fall short of explicitly advocating for their support or defeat.

Social welfare nonprofits — such as Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which was co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove — spent hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of the 2012 election.

The inspector general’s report concluded that despite the use of “inappropriate criteria,” the IRS was “not politically biased” in its assessment of nonprofits’ applications.

In recent days, the agency’s actions have received bipartisan condemnation, and IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller resigned Wednesday.

Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

Judicial candidate blames mystery nonprofit's attacks for defeat

2013-05-16T16:20:38-04:00

When Ed Sheehy looked at his mail one day last fall, he was startled to see his face staring back at him, posed alongside the notorious “Christmas Day Killer.” Sheehy, as a public defender, had represented the man a year earlier. Now Sheehy was running for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court and someone was using the double-murder to accuse him of being soft on crime.

“I was furious,” the 60-year-old Sheehy, who was born in Butte, Mont., and now resides in Missoula, told the Center for Public Integrity. “It was misrepresenting what I did and what I do as a lawyer.”

So who was behind the attack?

The mailer showed only that it was paid for by the “Montana Growth Network,” a “social welfare” nonprofit, registered under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. Montana election records revealed next to nothing about the organization, which, because of its tax status, is not required to disclose its donors. The nonprofit’s website says its goal is to make Montana “more business friendly.”

Despite finishing on top in the summer’s primary election, Sheehy lost in November.

Mystery mailers

He blames the mailers and similarly themed radio ads paid for by the group for his defeat, and he is angry that it was not required to report the full extent of its spending — much less the names of those who bankrolled it.

Montana, in fact, is one of 35 states where disclosure laws for independent groups like the Montana Growth Network are less stringent than what federal election law requires, according to a new analysis by the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Sheehy, the nephew of a former Montana Supreme Court justice, first faced off against attorney Elizabeth Best and Laurie McKinnon, a district judge, in a three-way, nonpartisan primary in June. The top two vote-getters advanced to the general election in November.

Ahead of the primary, the Montana Growth Network endorsed McKinnon and touted her in a mass mailing as “fair,” “honest,” “constitutional” and “the only nonpartisan choice for Supreme Court.”

The group’s mailers also focused on Sheehy’s work defending a murderer and criticized Best for pursuing a lawsuit to “seize control of the state’s atmosphere … to stop global warming.”

Sheehy, who finished first with 34.3 percent of the vote, spent $32,000 during the primary, and McKinnon, who finished second with 33.6 percent of the vote, spent about $30,000, records show. Best came in at third with 32.1 percent.

Best raised more than the other two candidates combined — $128,000, which included roughly $20,000 of her own money. She was the only candidate to advertise on television.

The Montana Growth Network spent roughly $42,000 during the primary election — more than either Sheehy or McKinnon’s own campaigns.

Outsider spends big

Best told the Center for Public Integrity that she was “stunned” by the result.

“Hearing from the candidates doesn’t matter anymore,” she said, adding that what matters is who has well-financed outside supporters to “cast candidates as something they aren’t and to tip the scales.”

McKinnon, Best said, was “running as a partisan with unlimited backing.”

The amount spent by the Montana Growth Network in the primary was required by state law to be disclosed because the mailings urged voters to support or oppose a candidate — a line the nonprofit says it didn’t cross with its subsequent activities, whose costs it did not disclose.

Ahead of the November election, one direct mail piece from the Montana Growth Network argued that under Sheehy, justice would be “beholden to a political party,” based on Sheehy’s past financial support of Democratic candidates.

Additionally, both mail and radio advertisements said that Sheehy had an “activist agenda” for his defense of Tyler Michael Miller, the so-called “Christmas Day Killer” who murdered his girlfriend and her 15-year-old daughter “in cold blood” in 2010.

While defending Miller, Sheehy had unsuccessfully sought for Montana’s death penalty process to be ruled unconstitutional because a single judge, not a jury, is allowed to assess whether “mitigating factors” exist that might rule out a death sentence.

Sheehy says he was simply “doing his job.” Miller is currently serving two life sentences after ultimately pleading guilty.

Ads tread fine line

Instead of urging people to vote against Sheehy or support McKinnon, the ads advised voters to “contact Ed Sheehy and tell him that you want an impartial Supreme Court” and to sign an online petition.

How much was spent on these advertisements is not public.

Montana media outlets reported on the anti-Sheehy radio ads, and Sheehy called on McKinnon to denounce them, which she did.

“Negative advertising has no place in a nonpartisan race,” McKinnon said in a press release at the time. “I ask for your vote based on who I am, not on negative portrayals of my opponent.”

On Election Day, McKinnon bested Sheehy by 12 percentage points.

She had also been endorsed by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and spent about $35,000 on the general election campaign. Sheehy, who had been endorsed by the Montana AFL-CIO and state’s teachers’ union, spent roughly $44,000.

Being painted as an “activist” by the Montana Growth Network, Sheehy said, was insurmountable.

“In judicial elections, that does you in,” he said.

University of Montana political science professor Jim Lopach said he was surprised by the election results.

Name didn't help

“It’s amazing that Sheehy didn’t win with name recognition he had," Lopach said, adding that McKinnon came across as the "more conservative" candidate.

One fact that is known about the Montana Growth Network is the name of its founder and treasurer — Republican state Sen. Jason Priest, who donated the legal maximum of $620 to McKinnon’s campaign.

McKinnon declined to be interviewed for this story. Priest told the Center for Public Integrity that Best and Sheehy “disqualified themselves” during the race.

“The voters made their own decision based on the information they had,” Priest said. “We told voters that you’re better off with a nonpartisan court.”

Priest said the Montana Growth Network didn’t report the spending to the state because it was “issue advocacy,” which is not required to be disclosed.

In the months since the election, the Montana Growth Network has continued to produce issue advertisements, including mailers that encouraged Montana lawmakers to reject the expansion of Medicaid coverage called for under the health care reform law signed by President Barack Obama.

Jim Murry, the Montana Political Practices Commissioner until he resigned earlier this year, told the Center for Public Integrity that “voters should be angry and upset” about the lack of transparency at the state level regarding political ads.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010, which lifted a ban on corporate spending on political ads that call for the election or defeat of federal candidates, many lawmakers have attempted to update regulations at the state level.

During its most recent legislative session, a bipartisan group of Montana lawmakers pushed for new campaign finance rules that would have required disclosure of “electioneering communications” — defined as ads run within 90 days of an election that show or mention candidates without explicitly advocating for their election or defeat.

The Montana state Senate passed the bill in March on a 29-21 vote, but it died in committee in the Montana House of Representatives. A motion in April to bring it to the House floor without committee approval received majority support but fell six votes short of the three-fifths required.

Secret spending in judicial elections concerns Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for fair and impartial courts.

“There are real concerns that judges will be partial to the individuals or the interest groups that are responsible for putting them on the bench,” he said. “The power of the judiciary depends on its reputation.”

For more information about money in state politics, visit the National Institute on Money in State Politics online at www.followthemoney.org.

IRS employees back Obama, Democrats

2013-05-20T01:56:07-04:00

President Barack Obama collected more than $110,000 from employees of the Internal Revenue Service during his 2008 and 2012 campaigns — significantly more money than any other contemporary political candidate, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The donations were split roughly evenly between Obama's two presidential bids.

Ahead of the 2012 election, IRS employees collectively gave Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney about $25,000 — less than half the amount received by Obama. For his part, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the GOP's presidential nominee in 2008, collected only about $6,000 from IRS employees.

The IRS has become the center of attention following an apology Friday by Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, for what she acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative nonprofits for additional scrutiny since 2010. Obama himself said on Monday that offenders in the agency needed to be held "fully accountable."

On Tuesday, a report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said the IRS used "inappropriate criteria" when reviewing organizations seeking tax-exemption.

During the past two decades, individual employees of the agency have collectively increased their political giving, which has overwhelming benefited Democrats and liberal-leaning organizations.

Overall, rank-and-file IRS employees donated more than $840,000 to federal candidates and committees from 1989 to 2012, according to the Center's analysis. Democrats and liberal-leaning organizations received about two-thirds of this sum.

While GOP-aligned groups and candidates received the remainder, during some election cycles, such as the 2002 midterms and the 2010 midterms, Republicans and conservative-leaning organizations achieved near-parity.

The Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, John Kerry, who is now serving as secretary of state, ranked second behind Obama and ahead of Romney among candidates to benefit from the financial largesse of IRS employees, collecting about $31,000 during his failed presidential bid.

The top organizational beneficiary of money from IRS employees is the National Treasury Employees Union, which accounted for more than $102,000 in donations. The labor union has historically supported Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee have also received notable support from IRS employees, with each collecting about $45,000 over the years.

All federal employees, including those who work for the IRS, are bound by the Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939 with the intent of curbing partisan power abuses by civil servants.

The Hatch Act generally bans federal employees from engaging in political activity while on the job, including soliciting funds for candidates. But political activities during personal time that do not use government resources, such as donating or volunteering for a campaign, are typically allowed.

Federal campaign finance law requires all individuals who donate more than $200 to a political group or candidate to list their employer and occupation. These filings may understate the donations of individuals who give less than the reporting threshold or who do not clearly identify the IRS as their employer.

Nonprofits organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code have flourished in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010, which lifted restrictions on the types of political advertising in which these groups could engage.

During the IRS’s 2012 fiscal year alone, nearly 2,800 groups sought tax-exemption under Section 501(c)(4), as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

This tax status permits organizations to pursue a mission of promoting "social welfare" and allows them to keep their funders secret. Groups with the primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy must disclosure their donors.

Reporter Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

Negative ad blitz can't stop Mark Sanford in S.C.

South Carolina,United States — 2013-05-09T17:16:01-04:00

In a district much more Republican than average, former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford tonight survived an onslaught from allies of Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert, to win a seat in Congress.

Supporters of Colbert Busch spent nearly $1 million on advertisements criticizing the GOP's scandal-singed Sanford ahead of the special election in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. Most of these groups were based in Washington, D.C.

But during the election's final week, Sanford’s allies more than achieved spending parity: They reported making $157,000 in independent expenditures that either advocated for his election or against that of Colbert Busch, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of FEC records.

Colbert Busch’s allies reported spending about $152,000 on such independent expenditures during the race's final week.

That 11th-hour rush of cash helped reverse what had, to that point, proven to be anemic outside support for Sanford. Super PACs, political action committees and nonprofit groups overall spent less than $200,000 on ads that expressly advocated for Sanford's election or Colbert Busch's defeat.

Sanford-aligned groups included FreedomWorks, Independent Women’s Voice and the National Right to Life Committee.

Some pro-Sanford ads made the argument that a vote for Colbert Busch equated to a "vote for Nancy Pelosi," the highest ranking House Democrat who hails from San Francisco.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the deep-pocketed super PAC known as House Majority PAC, which backs House Democrats, accounted for the bulk of spending on Colbert Busch's behalf.

The DCCC alone reported spending about $460,000 on anti-Sanford independent expenditures while House Majority PAC spent about $430,000 on negative ads, federal disclosures indicate.

The DCCC's Republican counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, decided against supporting Sanford — he cheated on his now-former wife while serving as governor and this week faces charges he trespassed in her house — with financial resources.

Colbert Busch's campaign committee itself raised more than $1.1 million as April 17, according to federal campaign finance records.

Sanford, for his part, had raised about $788,000 as of April 17, including money he spent winning a crowded GOP primary and subsequent primary runoff.

Both those figures will assuredly increase when the campaigns release final financial reports next month.

The vacancy in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District arose when Republican Rep. Tim Scott was tapped by Gov. Nikki Haley to fill Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s seat after he resigned to lead the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, D.C.

Sanford first served in Congress from 1995 to 2001.

Environmentalists boost ally in Massachusetts special election

2013-05-02T11:31:37-04:00

Environmentalists invested heavily in Rep. Ed Markey — a champion of climate change issues and their preferred candidate in Massachusetts’ Democratic U.S. Senate special primary — who bested rival Rep. Stephen Lynch on Tuesday by 15 percentage points, according to the Associated Press.

The League of Conservation Voters led the way on messaging that expressly advocated either for or against one of the two Democratic candidates, spending more than $830,000 on pro-Markey independent expenditures, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. The spending came via LCV’s political action committee, as well as its affiliated super PAC and 501(c)(4) nonprofit arm.

Overall, groups reported spending roughly $2 million to advocate for or against the candidates, according to the Center's analysis. Nearly 90 percent of the expenditures supported Markey or opposed Lynch.

The spending came despite a “people’s pledge” between Markey and Lynch designed to limit the amount of involvement by deep-pocketed independent groups that have proliferated in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

“Ed Markey has never stopped fighting for us, and we’re going to keep fighting for him,” League of Conservation Voters Chairman Scott Nathan said in a press release after the race was called.

Markey was additionally aided by a super PAC called the “NextGen Committee.”

That group was bankrolled by billionaire venture capitalist Tom Steyer, who opposes the Keystone XL pipeline project. Markey opposes that project. Lynch supports it.

The NextGen Committee spent about $350,000 on ads attacking Lynch and contributed $250,000 to the League of Conservation Voter’s super PAC.

An environmental nonprofit called the “350.org Action Fund” — a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization — also reported nearly $50,000 in pro-Markey expenditures.

Markey also had a significant cash advantage over Lynch.

As of mid-April, Markey’s campaign had raised about $4.8 million, according to FEC records, while Lynch’s campaign had raised about $2.3 million.

For his part, Lynch received last-minute outside support from a super PAC called “The Ninety-Nine Percent,” a nod to the populist rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Formed on March 27, the Ninety-Nine Percent super PAC didn't report its funders prior to the election because of it's late entry, meaning it found a way to play a significant role in the campaign while revealing little about itself or its backers to voters.

The Ninety-Nine Percent super PAC reported spending about $140,000 on pro-Lynch robocalls during the final two weeks of the campaign.

On FEC documents, the group’s treasurer is listed as Edward C. McHugh, who is the general treasurer of the Ironworkers International union. Former Ironworkers International General President Joseph J. Hunt is listed as its “designated agent.”

Officials with the Ironworkers International could not immediately be reached for comment.

(Update, May 2, 2013, 11:30 a.m.: "The Ninety-Nine Percent raised funds from a number of unions and their political committees," McHugh wrote in an email to the Center for Public Integrity. "The Ninety-Nine Percent will publicly report to the FEC all of its receipts and spending through June 30th in July, as required.")

Lynch, the son of an ironworker, previously served as the president of an ironworkers local union in Boston.

The International Association of Firefighters also made expenditures to boost Lynch, while the Service Employees International Union backed Markey.

Markey will now face Republican Gabriel Gomez in a June 25 special election to fill the seat vacated by Sen. John Kerry, who was tapped earlier this year by President Barack Obama to serve as secretary of state.

Gomez won the GOP primary Tuesday with some late assistance from a super PAC called the “Committee for a Better Massachusetts.” That group’s largest donor was Bain Capital managing director Stephen Zide, who gave $25,000 of the $50,000 the group reported raising through mid-April.

Other donors to the Committee for a Better Massachusetts include Mike Ascione, managing director at Berkshire Partners, who gave $15,000, and Athenahealth CEO Jonathan Bush, who gave $10,000.

Environmental nonprofit makes big ad buy thanking senators

2013-04-30T15:17:04-04:00

Environmentalists are spoofing AT&T's "It's not complicated" advertising campaign in a new series of big-dollar messages thanking Democratic senators for their votes in March against budget amendments that they believed would have weakened the Clean Air Act.

"What's better: More industrial carbon pollution that leads to more asthma attacks or less industrial carbon pollution that leads to less asthma attacks?" a man in a blue suit asks to four children sitting around a small table in a new ad unveiled today by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Predictably, the children say "less," as they detail their own asthma ailments.

Telecommunications giant AT&T has repeatedly shown a businessman quizzing children about the benefits of being bigger and faster in recent ads.

The five new ads released by the Environmental Defense Fund specifically single out Sens. Kay Hagan, D-N.C.; Tim Kaine, D-Va.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; and Mark Warner, D-Va. as worthy of thanks.

Environmental Defense Fund spokeswoman Sharyn Stein told the Center for Public Integrity that the media buy would be "six figures."

The Environmental Defense Fund is organized as a charitable nonprofit under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. Campaign finance attorney Joe Birkenstock of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Caplin & Drysdale says that such nonprofits face "no restrictions for running pure issue advocacy."

Charitable organizations are restricted from expressly advocating for or against federal candidates, but thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010, "social welfare" nonprofit groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code may overtly support or criticize candidates.

Hagan, Shaheen and Warner will next face voters in November 2014. Kaine and McCaskill were both re-elected last fall.

According to its most recent annual report, the Environmental Defense Fund raised about $116 million during its 2012 fiscal year — with foundation grants accounting for about 26 percent of that sum.

Like other nonprofits, the Environmental Defense Fund is not legally required to disclose the names of its donors. But all nonprofits must report the grants they make to fellow nonprofits.

According to the Foundation Center, which monitors foundation giving, groups that supported the Environmental Defense Fund in 2012 include the Kresge Foundation ($540,000), the Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation ($120,000) and the F. M. Kirby Foundation ($100,000).

The Kresge Foundation earmarked its contribution for wetlands work in Louisiana, while the Kirby Foundation gave to support "science-based policy solutions to protect the Adirondacks from acid deposition" and the Gimbel Foundation contributed for "general support."

Lobbyists make it rain for Democrats

2013-04-25T12:32:39-04:00

Federal lobbyists have this year collected nearly $1 million on behalf of national party organizations tasked with helping Democrats retain control of the U.S. Senate and regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign finance disclosures.

A dozen lobbyists bundled $882,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the first quarter, records show, while one organization bundled $18,500 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Top lobbyist bundlers for the DSCC this year include Democratic super lobbyist Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group ($145,000), as well as the political action committees of the firms Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck ($228,750); Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld ($174,450) and Holland & Knight ($97,000).

The National Association of Realtors PAC was the sole lobbyist-bundler for the DCCC during the three-month period.

Bundlers raise campaign cash from friends and associates and deliver the checks in a “bundle.” They are often receive special access or other perks for their fundraising acumen.

The amount lobbyist-bundlers raised for their GOP counterparts is unknown. That's because earlier this month, both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee opted to change the frequency of their filing disclosures with the Federal Election Commission.

Their next reports must be submitted by July 31 and will detail fundraising activity by lobbyists during the first six months of 2013.

During the past two years, the two Democratic party committees collected more money from lobbyists than their Republican equivalents, as a recent Center for Public Integrity analysis highlighted.

That comes despite frequent criticism of lobbyists and Washington special interests by President Barack Obama, who himself rejects donations or contribution bundles from lobbyists, as does the Democratic National Committee.

The Center's analysis found that the DSCC raised nearly three times as much money from lobbyist-bundlers than the NRSC ($2.8 million versus $1 million), while the DCCC also edged out the NRCC ($617,000 versus $455,000).

The analysis also found that Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey raised more money from lobbyist-bundlers than any other member of Congress during the 2011-2012 election cycle (about $227,000) and Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, collected more money from lobbyist-bundlers than any other member of the House ($59,000).

Notably, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., received nearly as much money from lobbyist-bundlers as Menendez during the past two years, and these contributions accounted for 10 percent of Graham's overall haul — a significantly larger portion than any other member of Congress.

The leadership PACs of Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., ranked as the political groups with the next largest portion of receipts tied to the fundraising efforts of registered lobbyists.

After Graham, Schumer himself ranked as the lawmaker with the second largest portion of his total contributions coming from lobbyist-bundlers.

Reporting of bundling by lobbyists was required by a 2007 law prompted by the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who served three-and-a-half years in federal prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges.

Graham's campaign collects bundle from lobbyists

2013-04-24T12:25:05-04:00

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham raised more money from lobbyists ahead of the 2012 election than any other member of Congress save one — an impressive feat considering he wasn’t on the ballot.

Roughly 10 percent of Graham’s $2.2 million haul, about $223,000, came from lobbyists acting as “bundlers,” a higher percentage than any other member. Bundlers raise money from friends and associates and deliver the checks in a “bundle.”

Only New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who did face opposition in 2012, received more bundled campaign cash from lobbyists — about $227,100 — less than 2 percent of his total contributions, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.

Graham’s bundlers include organizations and lobbyists whose positions Graham has supported. Among them are an energy giant, the film industry’s main trade association and a former U.S. ambassador who represents clients that would benefit from the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Tops on the list, however, were GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his “victory fund,” which accepted more than $17 million from lobbyist-bundlers. Six individuals raised at least $1 million apiece for Romney’s unsuccessful efforts, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

In all, a dozen candidates and political committees raised at least $100,000 from lobbyist-bundlers ahead of the 2012 election, including the leadership PAC of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Money well spent?

According to FEC filings, Graham’s No. 1 lobbyist-bundler during the past two years was SCANA Corp., a South Carolina-based energy company that ranked among Fortune’s 500 largest as recently as 2011.

The corporation was credited with bundling $84,650 for Graham and its political action committee gave him an additional $9,000. During the same period, SCANA Corp., with Graham’s help, was angling for permission to build new nuclear power generators.

In February 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the first nuclear reactor construction permits in more than three decades. A month later, when it awarded two of them to the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, a SCANA Corp. subsidiary, Graham hailed the action.

“We worked for years to see these reactors approved, and I’m very pleased this long-sought goal has finally been achieved,” he said in a press release at the time.

Officials with SCANA Corp., which spent nearly $2 million on federal lobbying during the two-year period, declined to comment.

Kevin Bishop, Graham’s communication director, denies that campaign contributions influence the senator’s decision-making process.

“People who contribute to Sen. Graham support his policies, views and leadership on issues important to South Carolina and the United States,” Bishop wrote in an email to the Center for Public Integrity.

Canadian connection

Graham has likewise supported the interests of many of lobbyist David Wilkins’ clients.

Wilkins, the former South Carolina House speaker who served as the U.S. ambassador to Canada under President George W. Bush, ranked as Graham’s second-largest lobbyist-bundler during the 2012 election cycle, credited with bringing in $61,500.

During the past two years, Wilkins’ clients included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Alberta Energy, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and Nexen Inc., an oil and gas company based in Alberta that was purchased in February by the Chinese.

All have interests in the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which Graham backs.

Together, the entities spent a combined $2.4 million lobbying the U.S. government during the past two years, records show.

In 2010, Graham told a Canadian newspaper that he was “going to do everything I can to make sure that oil sands production is not impeded because of U.S. policy.”

A year later, he said that rejecting the proposal would be “one of the biggest energy policy blunders in our history."

Last year, he co-sponsored legislation that sought congressional authority to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

While the Canadian companies may benefit from Graham’s support, only employees or agents who are U.S. citizens can legally make contributions to the senator’s campaign.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina State Ports Authority reported spending $140,000 on lobbying through Wilkins’ firm during the past two years. Graham has pushed for the harbor in Charleston, S.C., to receive federal funding for deepening shipping channels. Last year, it was among a handful of port projects expedited by President Barack Obama.

Wilkins, who has also personally donated $5,000 to Graham’s re-election campaign, says that bundling does not play a role in his lobbying strategy for clients.

“These contributions came from friends of mine and Sen. Graham’s,” he said, adding that he and Graham have been “good friends” for decades.

“None of these contributions came from my clients,” he continued, adding that he has “never asked” Graham “for a specific vote or to take a certain position.”

Graham, too, collected $18,000 from the Motion Picture Association of America, which is headed by his former Senate colleague Chris Dodd, a Democrat who represented Connecticut.

During the past two years, the industry trade group spent more than $4 million on federal lobbying, with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) ranking among its top concerns. Graham was a co-sponsor of PIPA, and he continued to tout his support of “protecting intellectual property rights” after online activists help sink the legislation in January 2012.

Representatives of the MPAA, which is not affiliated with Wilkins, did not respond to requests for comment.

Party committees benefit

Unlike Romney and the Republican National Committee, Obama’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee prohibited registered lobbyists from bundling contributions or personally donating.

But other Democratic Party organizations had no such ban, and they outperformed their GOP counterparts.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected nearly three times more cash from lobbyist-bundlers ($2.8 million) than the National Republican Senatorial Committee ($1 million).

Additionally, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee collected roughly $617,000 thanks to fundraising efforts by lobbyists, while the National Republican Congressional Committee raised $455,000.

Reporting of bundling by lobbyists was required by a 2007 law prompted by the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges and ultimately served three-and-a-half years in federal prison.

Obama urged Congress in his State of the Union address last year to prohibit lobbyists from bundling campaign cash for federal candidates.

Monte Ward, the president of the American League of Lobbyists who is not a bundler himself, says such legislation “would have a hard time passing muster in the courts,” citing First Amendment concerns.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the consumer rights group Public Citizen, supports the idea, arguing that bundling is a way for special interests to “buy a seat at the table.”

However, Holman says it has been difficult to find Republican lawmakers willing to work on the issue.

For his part, Graham is prioritizing gun and immigration issues, according to spokesman Bishop, not campaign finance reform.

Super PACs invest in D.C. Council race

2013-04-23T23:38:33-04:00

It's tough to be a Republican in the District of Columbia, even when armed with a sizable campaign war chest and auxiliary support from super PACs during a low-turnout special election.

Despite his own fundraising prowess and support from two independent political action committees, Republican Patrick Mara failed to oust incumbent Democrat Anita Bonds in today's at-large D.C. Council race.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Mara ranked third in the race behind Bonds and Democratic challenger Elissa Silverman. Bonds carried 32.2 percent of the vote, while Silverman won 27.6 percent and Mara earned 22.8 percent.

Mara — a former lobbyist whom the Washington Post, D.C. Chamber of Commerce and Sierra Club's D.C. chapter all endorsed — was the election season's sole beneficiary of super PAC cash, indicating that these committees best known for raising and spending massive amounts of cash at the federal level aren't above local races.

D.C. Office of Campaign Finance spokesman Wesley Williams told the Center for Public Integrity that there are just two independent expenditure-only committees registered with the city government. Both were active on Mara's behalf.

The National Association of Realtors' super PAC spent $20,200 touting Mara, city records indicate. And a super PAC called the D.C. Action Fund spent more than $13,500.

The D.C. Action Fund is headed by Nicholas Jeffress, a former executive director of the District of Columbia Republican Committee. Brett McMahon, the president of the construction firm Miller & Long D.C., Inc., ranked as the group's top donor — giving $10,000 of the $35,000 it reported raising through mid-April.

One mailer from the D.C. Action Fund praised Mara for his opposition to taxes and support for education reform. It also stated that Mara would "fix our broken campaign and election system," while his opponents "won't change anything" in a city that has been plagued by ethics scandals.

At the federal level, super PACs have proliferated in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which overturned an existing ban on corporate spending for or against candidates. Super PACs may collect contributions of unlimited size from individuals, unions, corporations or other groups to produce political advertisements that are not coordinated with candidates.

Bonds' candidacy was endorsed by the D.C. Democratic Party, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees labor union and several local political heavyweights, including Marion Barry, the former D.C. mayor who now represents the 8th Ward in the southeastern portion of the nation's capital.

Silverman, a former journalist, was endorsed by the Washington City Paper and the popular Greater Greater Washington blog.

Both Bonds and Silverman were outraised by Mara, as well as Democrat Matthew Frumin, a lawyer and Advisory Neighborhood Commission representative.

Bonds collected about $137,000 in direct contributions during the campaign, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign finance reports filed with the D.C. government. Mara raised about $151,000, and Frumin raised about $157,000 — more than any other candidate.

Silverman raised just shy of $90,000.

Today's contest was the result of a vacancy created when council member Phil Mendelson was elevated to the position of Council Chairman last year, after the resignation of Kwame Brown.

Last June, Brown pleaded guilty to a felony bank fraud charge. In 2011, he faced criticism after a request for a "fully loaded" black SUV — paid for with D.C. government funds at the time of a projected $400 million budget shortfall — came to light.

During the campaign, Frumin and Silverman both tried to cast themselves as reformers on campaign finance issues.

Mara, too, advocated for publicly financed city elections, banning outside employment for council members and eliminating constituent service funds, which he said have been abused as "unchecked slush funds."

However, Mara noted there were some campaign finance reforms that he couldn't support — such as barring government contractors and lobbyists from contributing.

"In light of Citizens United, no local or state system can completely eliminate the influence of corporate money," he said in response to one survey. "A discussion that does not include that reality is naive."

Retiring senators sitting on $10.5 million

2013-04-23T11:39:08-04:00

Eight retiring U.S. senators are collectively sitting on $10.5 million in campaign funds, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign finance records filed last week.

And while federal law prohibits lawmakers from using campaign funds for personal use, they have a variety of options for leftover campaign cash.

The man with the most money still in the bank is Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who the Washington Post today reported will retire at the end of his sixth term in January 2015. The chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee still has nearly $5 million in his campaign account.

At the other end of the financial spectrum are Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who each had less than $200,000 in cash on hand through March, records indicate.

To date, six Democrats and two Republicans have announced plans to retire at the end of the 113th Congress.

With the exception of Baucus, most posted tepid fundraising numbers during the first quarter of 2013. Baucus raised nearly $1.6 million during the first three months of the year, records indicate.

The senators may give their surplus money away to other candidates, subject to the normal contribution limits, or transferred to a state or national party committee, which have no limits.

Politicans may also donate money to charity — including their own charities — as former Republican Reps. Ron Paul and Allen West have recently done.

Additionally, they may also use funds for "winding down" costs or other official campaign- or office-related expenses. Or the money may just be kept in the bank for future use, so long as the committee continues to file regular reports with the government.

Representatives for the retiring senators were largely mum about the lawmakers' designs for leftover funds.

Nick Simpson, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said the senator's campaign account "will be used to pay for any non-official expenses" during his remaining 20 months in office.

Bronwyn Lance Chester, a spokeswoman for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told the Center for Public Integrity that Chambliss "hasn't decided yet."

That sentiment was echoed by Levin spokeswoman Tara Andringa.

"Sen. Levin hasn’t decided what to do with any campaign funds that might be left when he finishes this term," Andringa said. "You can look at his 4/15 FEC report to see the recent choices he has made."

During the year's first three months, Levin reported about $14,200 in operating expenditures, including $3,000 for "website consulting" fees and about $580 to the Internal Revenue Service for federal income taxes.

Levin also reported refunding a $10,000 contribution to the political action committee of the International Union of Operating Engineers and doling out $20,000 to fellow Democratic senators who will be facing re-election in 2014, including Sens. Mark Begich, D-Alaska; Kay Hagan, D-N.C.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

More senators opt to e-file campaign disclosures

2013-04-22T10:09:45-04:00

(Updated April 20, 2013, 11:30 a.m.: This story has been updated to reflect that Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, electronically filed his first-quarter campaign finance report today.)

A small but increasing number of U.S. senators — the only federal politicians still allowed to submit campaign finance reports on paper — are opting to voluntarily file their disclosures electronically.

Fifteen current senators chose to e-file their first-quarter campaign finance reports, which were due Monday, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

For Senate campaigns filing on paper, it can take weeks, if not months, to get detailed information about who is bankrolling senators and Senate hopefuls.

The FEC pays to manually key in the information contained on paper reports before uploading it into its publicly accessible online databases.

Similar information is available online immediately for House candidates, members of the U.S. House of Representative, presidential candidates and political action committees once those groups e-file their reports.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., one of the senators who e-files his campaign finance reports, has again introduced legislation to require his colleagues to follow suit. Last month, he also unsuccessfully attempted to mandate the practice via an amendment to the budget. He says that e-filing would save taxpayers nearly $500,000 a year.

President Barack Obama has supported the idea in his own budget proposals. Congress must decide for itself whether to adopt e-filing for senators as it has for House members.

Lawmakers of varying ideological stripes joined Tester in voluntarily fast-tracking their first-quarter fundraising disclosures.

In addition to Tester, the first-quarter e-filers were:

Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
John Cornyn, R-Texas
Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Al Franken, D-Minn.
Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Angus King, I-Maine
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Tester's Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, S. 375, certainly has 31 co-sponsors across party lines.

Rebekah Smith, King's campaign manager, told the Center for Public Integrity that King intends to continue to e-file his campaign finance disclosures. She added that the paper copy of his first-quarter report was submitted on time but that the "press of business, including an office move" accounted for the late e-filing this month.

Wealthy supporters fuel Obama nonprofit

2013-04-12T23:15:10-04:00

Sixteen people accounted for nearly a quarter of the $4.8 million collected by Organizing for Action, the self-described "grassroots" nonprofit group affiliated with President Barack Obama that was created to push the White House’s policy agenda.

About 109,000 people gave money to the nonprofit from January through March, Organizing for Action announced today.

Donors from California ($568,215), New York ($363,893), New Jersey ($221,737), Florida ($84,010) and Massachusetts ($75,975) gave the most, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

The top donor by far was Philip Munger of New York City who gave $250,000. Munger is a philanthropist, academic and long-time contributor to Democratic causes.

Next were John Goldman of Atherton, Calif., and Nicola M. Miner of San Francisco who both gave $125,000. Goldman is former chairman of Willis Insurance Service of California, Inc. a U.S. branch of a global insurance brokerage firm. Miner is the daughter of Bob Miner, co-founder of Oracle Corp. and wife of John Mailer Anderson, a novelist and screenwriter.

Of the top 16 donors, each who gave $50,000 or more, nine are Obama campaign bundlers — elite fundraisers credited with raising funds from well-connected friends, family members and associates, then delivering it in a "bundle." Organizing for Action bills itself as nonpartisan.

Among other top donors:

Orin S. Kramer of Englewood, N.J. ($75,000): Chairman of hedge fund Kramer Spellman LP and former Clinton administration transition team adviser.
Ryan Smith of Salt Lake City ($50,875): CEO of Qualtrics, a Utah company that produces Web-based software for surveys.
Anthony P. Crabb of Healdsburg, Calif. ($50,000): Philanthropist and marriage equality advocate.
Barbara Grasseschi of Healdsburg, Calif. ($50,000): Bundler who raised at least $200,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts and is married to Crabb.
John Morgan of Orlando, Fla. ($50,000): Partner at Morgan & Morgan, the Florida law firm that employs former Gov. and Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist. Morgan is also a campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Laura Debonis of Boston ($50,000): Former director of the Google Books Library Project.
William H. Freeman of Nashville, Tenn. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Wayne Jordan of Oakland, Calif. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Michael Kempner of East Rutherford, N.J. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Charles H. Murphy III of Little Rock, Ark. ($50,000): Founder of Murphy Oil Corporation.
S. Donald Sussman of Portland, Maine ($50,000): Prominent hedge fund investor.
Andrew Tobias of New York City ($50,000): Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and gay rights activist. Also a bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.
Imaad Zuberi of El Monte, Calif. ($50,000): Campaign bundler who raised at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election efforts.

About 60 percent of the group’s money appears to have come from donors who gave less than $250 and were not identified.

Although the group actively collects donors' employer and occupation information, it has declined to release such information publicly. Withholding such data complicates confirming the identities of donors with common names.

As a nonprofit organization, Organizing for Action is not required to release any information about its donors — unlike campaign committees or super PACs. And for weeks after its founding early this year, leaders offered no indication that it would.

After pressure from campaign finance reformers and others, the group relented and agreed to reveal some donor information. The group also reversed course on seeking corporate contributions. It also refuses lobbyist money, but accepts cash from unions.

The National Education Association is one union that donated early this year, giving the pro-Obama nonprofit $15,466.

Not all big-dollar Obama backers, however, have contributed to Organizing for Action.

For example, the four largest donors to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action — James H. Simons, Fred Eychaner, Steve Mostyn and Jeffrey Katzenberg — were absent from Organizing for Action's donor list.

Reity O'Brien and John Dunbar contributed to this report.

GOP senators urge FCC to avoid new disclosure rules

2013-04-11T11:48:47-04:00

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a dozen of his Republican colleagues have asked the Federal Communications Commission to resist implementing new rules targeting the makers of political advertisements in the absence of Congress passing new disclosure legislation.

"Political issues should be left to Congress," the senators wrote in a letter dated April 10 and obtained by the Center for Public Integrity. "If [the FCC] were to attempt to establish through rulemaking what Congress has declined to act upon, it would seriously undermine the integrity of the Commission and imperil its independence."

The new letter, which was also signed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., calls the yet-to-be-passed DISCLOSE Act "one of the most politically charged, partisan issues in recent Congresses." It criticizes the legislation for raising "grave Constitutional concerns for speech protected by the First Amendment."

The letter also admonishes the FCC not to become an arm of the Democratic Party.

"The FCC has a long tradition of being nonpartisan," the letter states. "We strongly urge you to categorically reject instituting the DISCLOSE Act by fiat."

Representatives for Cruz and the FCC could not immediately be reached for comment.

The senators' message comes a month after FCC officials testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about political advertisements. At the time, Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., advocated that the commission play a larger role in unmasking the funders of political advertisements.

It also comes a day after Cruz questioned the government's interest in "regulating the independent expenditures of public citizens" during a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing.

Senate Democrats have been unsuccessful in multiple attempts to pass legislation that would create new reporting and disclosure requirements for groups that air political advertisements.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010, Democrats garnered 59 votes for the DISCLOSE Act, one vote shy of threshold needed to break a GOP filibuster.

Political action committees, including super PACs, are required to disclosure their donors to the Federal Election Commission.

But politically active nonprofits organized under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code need only identify funders who earmark donations for specific political ads.

In other words, such groups today may operate just as super PACs do when it comes to sponsoring ads that advocate for or against political candidates — without the legal burden of disclosing most or all of their contributors.

Political strategists praise power of online fundraising

2013-04-10T15:11:10-04:00

Digital strategists Teddy Goff and Zac Moffatt worked for warring candidates during the 2012 presidential election, but they both agree that successful politicians going forward will fully embrace online engagement — and reap financial rewards from it.

Moffatt, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s digital director, points to Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., as candidates with particular online fundraising savvy — and both rising stars in the U.S. Senate who may be considering 2016 presidential bids.

“It’ll be interesting to see how much Rand Paul raised off the filibuster,” Moffatt said, alluding to Paul’s nearly 13-hour talk-a-thon in March against the confirmation of John Brennan to be the new CIA director.

Moffatt also remarked on how Rubio, who faced criticism and ridicule in February about drinking from a water bottle during his rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address, turned a potential gaffe into an online fundraising opportunity.

Rubio's tactic? Offer reusable Rubio water bottles for a donation of $25 or more, with the cash benefiting his Reclaim America PAC.

Today, the first three listings returned from a search on Google for "Rubio water bottle" pertain not to the senator's liquid-guzzling speech, but the success of his water bottle fundraiser.

Rubio is a client of Targeted Victory, Moffatt's consulting firm.

Goff, the digital director for Obama’s re-election campaign, declined to identify any specific politicians that he sees carrying the torch forward following a panel discussion Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. But he said the power of online fundraising is evident.

Consider that Obama’s 2012 campaign reportedly raised a staggering $690 million online, often with low-dollar donors giving repeatedly over the course of the election.

Romney's online fundraising never came close, with the former Massachusetts governor more heavily relying on large-dollar contributions.

How powerful is the Internet for converting enthusiasm from supporters into cold, hard cash?

“It’s probably the most powerful by the end of [a campaign] because it’s the most scalable and flexible,” Moffatt told the Center for Public Integrity. “When it ramps, nothing else can really match it."

The Obama campaign notably engaged in extensive A/B testing of its online fundraising appeals — everything from the tone to the suggested donation amount to the subject line.

But Goff warned that replicating techniques alone won’t guarantee success for other politicians.

“Some of the tactics of testing and optimization, sure that will be replicable, but that wasn’t what raised all that money,” Goff said, adding that it was “the relationships” with grassroots supporters that “brought in those donations.”

Politicians who “honor” grassroots supporters, not just in rhetoric but by prioritizing them in the way a campaign is organized, could see similar success, Goff said.

“Obviously I think that President Obama is a pretty special candidate, but people are going to support all kinds of different candidates going forward in both parties,” he added. “Someone is going to come around who is able to inspire a lot of people.”

NCAA spent $1.6 million on lobbying in past decade

2013-04-08T13:07:41-04:00

The National Collegiate Athletic Association's "March Madness" will come to an end tonight as the University of Louisville's Division I men's basketball team faces off against the University of Michigan in Atlanta. But the game of politics won't stop for the NCAA's lobbyists.

The NCAA has employed in-house lobbyists since 1995. During the past decade, it has spent about $1.6 million on lobbying, including $150,000 in 2012 alone, according to records filed with the U.S. Senate.

Two lobbyists have worked to advance the NCAA's interests: Abe Frank, a veteran of Citigroup's government relations shop, and Edgar Burch.

The lobbyists spend "a significant amount of their time" on "educational efforts," NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn told the Center for Public Integrity.

Last year, the NCAA's top concerns included legislation related to the safety of athletes, bills to legalize betting on athletic competitions (which the organization opposes) and the "overflight ban on general aviation aircraft flying over large stadiums," records indicate.

The NCAA conducts 89 national championships in 23 sports. The "Frozen Four" tournament for men's Division I hockey will be held later this week in Pittsburgh.

Sanford gets late boost from N.Y. millionaire

South Carolina,United States — 2013-04-03T16:14:51-04:00

New York millionaire real estate developer Howard Rich, renowned for his support of conservative causes, has given a last-minute boost to the congressional campaign of former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Rich and his wife, Andrea, each donated the legal maximum of $2,600 to Sanford on March 28, according to federal records. They rank among the handful of elite donors to provide such support to Sanford since he headed into today's South Carolina 1st Congressional District primary runoff with fellow Republican Curtis Bostic, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.

Rich is a notable political player, who for decades has supported conservative causes, including term limits for politicians, limited government, property rights and school choice.

In 1992, he founded the nonprofit U.S. Term Limits, which advocates for term limits at all levels of government. In 1996, he founded another nonprofit called Americans for Limited Government. That nonprofit spent $1.4 million on independent expenditures to influence elections in 2010, according to documents it filed with the FEC.

A recent analysis by The State newspaper in South Carolina found that Rich contributed $153,000 to state legislative candidates during the 2012 election cycle. Rich used a network of limited liability companies to legally get around the state's $3,500 per person per candidate contribution limit.

Reports by the National Institute on Money in State Politics and the Center for Responsive Politics have also examined his influence on state and federal politics.

Neither Rich or Sanford immediately responded to requests for comment.

Dick Harpootlian, a trial lawyer and chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, told the Center for Public Integrity that it was "interesting but not surprising" that Rich made an eleventh-hour contribution to Sanford, who has also backed school choice measures.

"Howard Rich has been pressing this agenda for years," Harpootlian said. "He's got more clout than he should have but apparently not enough to get a voucher program passed."

On his campaign website, Sanford describes himself as a "long-time advocate for market-based education reform at the state and federal level."

Several other real estate developers have contributed the legal maximum of $2,600 to Sanford's campaign during the past two weeks.

Among them:

Paul and Laura Jost of Florida
James Melvin Miles of Isle of Palms, S.C.-based Exclusive Properties LLC
Joe Eden, the South Carolina businessman who founded and chairs the board of directors of EDENS, which owns and operates 130 shopping centers in the United States

Miles told the Center for Public Integrity that Sanford won his support because he is "extremely fiscally conservative" and "a Christian" who deserves to be given a "break" after going through "some tough times."

In 2009, Sanford resigned from a leadership role with the Republican Governors Association amid a scandal stemming from an affair with an Argentinean mistress. He and his wife divorced in 2010, and he went on to serve out the last year of his term in office.

Despite his troubles, Sanford won about 37 percent of the vote in the crowded March 19 GOP primary, well ahead of the 13 percent won by Bostic but not enough to avoid a runoff election.

Among Bostic's late-game supporters are a pair of Republican congressmen. The campaign committee of former Rep. Henry Brown of South Carolina contributed $2,000 to Bostic on March 28, and Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., used his leadership PAC to give $1,000 on March 25. Also in the mix is the conservative 60 Plus Association, which reported spending nearly $2,700 on pro-Bostic telephone calls.

Bostic has additionally received substantial support from natural gas executive James Willard Kinzer of Kentucky and his family, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

The winner of today's primary runoff will on May 7 face Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert, for the seat formerly held by Tim Scott, who was elevated to the U.S. Senate by Gov. Nikki Haley after the resignation in January of Sen. Jim DeMint.