Amy Myers stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Judicial candidates vulnerable to outside spending

Illinois,United States — 2012-08-21T10:48:24-04:00

Weeks before the March primary, Aurelia Pucinski looked like a shoe-in for a 10-year seat on Illinois’ highest court.

Polls published in the Chicago Sun-Times had her up by 20 points a month before the Democratic primary. The daughter of a famous Illinois congressman, she also had great name recognition — a rarity in judicial races.

But days before the election, mailers began appearing all over Cook County, calling her unqualified and “anti-choice.” Pucinski says she could not address the charge — the state judicial code of conduct prohibits candidates from commenting on an issue that may come before the court.

The tide turned in a week. Instead of cruising to an easy victory, Pucinski lost by 28 points.

The mailers were not paid for by any of her opponents. Instead, they were funded by Personal PAC, an abortion rights group that has had a hand in Illinois politics since 1978. Personal PAC spent $200,000 on ads to make sure its favored candidate, Justice Mary Jane Theis, remained on the bench.

“I lost dirty, and that troubles me,” Pucinksi said.

Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The vast majority of cases in the country are heard by elected judges.

Unlike non-judicial candidates, anyone who runs for judge must limit the subjects they can talk about. Illinois, like most states, prohibits a judicial candidate from making statements that “commit or appear to commit the candidate” to an issue that may come before them while on the bench.

Outside spending groups do not operate under the same rules. And thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, such groups can accept unlimited donations from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions and use the money to attack or support a candidate. The decision essentially invalidated laws that limited outside spending groups in 24 states, including Illinois.

Personal PAC was not an independent expenditure group, also known as a "super PAC," at the time, though it did form one later. But in Illinois, the contribution limits are so high — PACs can accept $50,000 per year from corporations and $10,000 per year from individuals — that they can make a near super PAC-level impact.

By way of comparison, a federal candidate can accept $2,500 per election from an individual and corporate donations are banned. PACs that make contributions to candidates can accept up to $5,000.

Theis’ campaign manager says high ratings and key endorsements propelled her to victory late in the race. Theis had been appointed to the state Supreme Court a year-and-a-half before the race. She was endorsed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the Cook County Democratic Party and the Chicago Tribune.

But Pucinski blames Personal PAC’s attack for the sudden reversal.

Enjoying a comfortable early lead in the four-candidate race, Pucinski voluntarily capped donations to her campaign from businesses to $500 and from attorneys to $75 and refused to ask for endorsements from single-issue groups like Personal PAC.

With these self-imposed limits in place, her campaign took in just over $30,000 and attracted no outside spending.

Theis took a different tack. She raked in more than $1.1 million thanks to fundraisers held by state Democrats including Emanuel and spent campaign funds on ads touting her endorsements. Theis declined to comment for this story.

She told the Chicago Tribune days before the race that she had reached out to a number of groups for support, but that her endorsements would not undermine the integrity of the courts.

”People understand political campaigns are the way some judges are chosen,” she said.

A week out, polling from the Theis campaign put her and Pucinksi neck and neck. Then, Personal PAC launched its attack. The funds went to mailers, barraging Democratic women in the Cook County area with the claim that Pucinski was an “anti-choice” candidate.

Pucinski held a press conference days before the election to decry the big spending by Personal PAC, but was mum on the “anti-choice” charge, due, she says, to the code of conduct for judicial candidates.

The claim appears to be rooted in a 1993 Chicago Tribune story. Pucinski said she didn’t “believe in abortion as a method of birth control” but would not make an attempt to stop abortions in Cook County. She says she has since refused to express her personal views on the topic.

Despite Pucinski’s nearly two decades of silence on abortion, Terry Cosgrove, CEO of Personal PAC, stands behind the group’s position in the primary.

“[Pucinski] spent her entire career trying to hide her anti-choice and anti-birth control stance,” he said.

In the end, Cosgrove and Pucinski do agree on one thing — Personal PAC had a major influence on the primary. Cosgrove says that Personal PAC’s mailers “educated hundreds of thousands of voters on her record.”

Pucinski says they cost her the election and allowed Theis to remain on the bench.

At the time of the election fight, Personal PAC’s legal team was a securing a different kind of victory — this one in the federal courts.

Prior to 2011, Illinois imposed few, if any, limits on contributions. Reforms came following indictments of former Govs. George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich on federal corruption charges. The state legislature took action and capped campaign donations to guard against the quid-pro-quo system that had become synonymous with Chicago politics.

The Supreme Court race was one of the first under the new law.

Personal PAC moved to have those limits thrown out. Citing the Citizens United case, the group challenged the state’s contribution limits to independent expenditure groups. It won. A day later the organization created “Personal PAC Independent Committee,” the state’s first super PAC, and began raking in donations. Despite the court victory, it did not spend any super PAC money on the Supreme Court race.

For judicial races this year, that’s not likely to be the case.

In the 2012 election, 19 states have contestable state Supreme Court elections. Ten of those states — Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia — had their laws banning corporate and/or union contributions to outside spending groups tossed out.

Next up for Personal PAC and Theis is the general election, where she is heavily favored. She will face Circuit Judge James G. Riley, who ran unopposed in the Republican primary.

State Sen. Dan Duffy, R-Lake Barrington, who faced attacks by Personal PAC three years ago, said a super PAC will make Personal PAC CEO Terry Cosgrove more intimidating to candidates who face the pro-choice organization.

“Now that he’s [got] a super PAC, he’s even more powerful than before,” Duffy said.

Donor profile: William “Bill” Koch

2013-01-30T22:19:24-05:00

Ranking: 19

Total contribution to super PACs: $4.8 million*

$4 million to Restore Our Future (pro-Mitt Romney)
$550,000 to the America 360 Committee (pro-Scott Brown)
$100,000 to Freedom PAC (pro-Connie Mack; pro-Allen West)
$100,000 to Treasure Coast Jobs Coalition (pro-Allen West)

Notable federal hard and soft money and 527 contributions:

$30,000 to the Democratic National Committee (1992-2002)
$50,400 to the Republican National Committee (2004-2008)
$80,000 to the Kansas Democratic Party

Corporate name: Oxbow Carbon LLC

Corporate subsidiaries: Huron Carbon LLC

Total spent on federal lobbying (2007-2012): $2.9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics

Lobbying issues: Oil and gas, energy emissions

Biography:

William is the billionaire brother of Charles and David Koch and one the four sons of Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries. Unlike his conservative-leaning brothers, Koch has given money to candidates on both sides of the aisle, supporting politicians who back his energy interests.

His cash has helped fund the campaigns of Democrats such as the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Vice President Al Gore and former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

He sold his share of the family business for a reported $1.3 billion in 1983 after a failed takeover bid and later sued for more, accusing Koch Industries of stealing oil from federal land. In 2001, the company settled the lawsuit for $25 million, CBS News reported.

Koch struck out on his own and formed Oxbow, an energy development company based in Palm Beach, Fla. A chemical engineer, Koch earned bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and with Oxbow, he made his fortune in energy commodities.

The corporation mines, sells and trades coal, natural gas and calcined coke, an ingredient used in the production of aluminum. Last year, Oxbow was ranked as the 91st largest private company in the country, according to Forbes, and has a reported $1.7 billion in combined assets.

Oxbow has lobbied on emissions standards, including regulations on greenhouse gases and this year’s highway bill, which passed in June after provisions on the Keystone XL oil pipeline and coal ash regulation were dropped. Oxbow has also poured money into support for Koch’s Central Rockies Land Exchange bill which, if passed, would give him a tract of land that bisects his Colorado ranch.

Koch is a big fan of the Wild West. He even has the ghost town to prove it. In 2010, he dropped $3.1 million to buy Buckskin Joe, a fake ghost town and Old West tourist attraction in Colorado. He moved the buildings, which once served as the background for classic cowboy movies, to his 5,000-acre ranch. Last year, he spent $2.3 million to win an auction for the world’s only photograph of Billy the Kid, CNN reported.

When he’s not playing sheriff, Koch is also an avid sailor. He won the 1992 America's Cup with his yacht, America. The Boy Scouts of America hosts the William I. Koch International Sea Scout Cup in his honor.

Last updated: Jan. 30, 2013

*2011-2012 election cycle. Source: Center for Responsive Politics and Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission records. Totals include contributions from individuals, family members and corporations that are controlled by the individual super donor.

Contribution limits at risk in states thanks to Supreme Court

Illinois,United States — 2012-07-17T07:47:59-04:00

A campaign finance arms race is in danger of breaking out in Illinois and at least three other states as lawmakers use the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as justification for raising or even eliminating campaign contribution limits.

In Illinois, for example, the legislature voted last month to repeal limits on corporate contributions to candidates when super PACs or individuals spend more than $250,000 on a state race or $100,000 on a local race.

The move would balance spending between outside groups and candidates, say supporters. But it could also lead to far greater spending in elections, raising concerns about possible corruption, say critics.

Twenty-four states had bans in place against corporate or union spending on elections that were knocked down by Citizens United. Nineteen of the 24 states passed laws to require better disclosure.

The Illinois bill, introduced by House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, expands an existing loophole in Illinois’ campaign finance law.

In May, the bill passed the state House 30-26 and the Senate 63-55 with no Republican support and awaits Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature or veto. Quinn signed campaign finance legislation into law in 2009 that limited contributions to elected officials to $5,000 from an individual, $10,000 from a business or labor group and $50,000 from a regulated political action committee.

The same law also limited donations to outside spending groups. The law went into effect in January 2011. But the outside spending provision was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, who cited the Citizens United decision.

“I want to level the playing field as best I can manage,” Currie said. She says that her bill will help candidates who face opposition from wealthy super PACs.

With the current limits on candidates and unrestricted spending by super PACs, Currie said, “you’re basically turning over our democracy to the deepest pockets.”

That’s exactly what opponents, led by Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, fear the bill will do. He called the legislation a “direct about-face” on campaign finance reform and a reversal of any progress the state legislature had made in combating corruption.

Campaign watchdog groups Change! Illinois and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) are calling for a veto of the bill and instead are asking for increased penalties for coordinated activities between super PACs and candidates.

The law would give wealthy groups even more control — a super PAC donor would effectively have the power to create a no-contribution-limit election, according to David Morrison, the deputy director of the ICPR.

Morrison, testifying before a legislative committee, said that spending in races for the Illinois Supreme Court seats and for Chicago mayor had historically exceeded the threshold proposed in the bill.

Though Citizens United overturned limitations on corporate and/or union spending in 24 states it upheld the states’ power to set limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates as tools for fighting corruption.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that contributions to candidates, unlike uncoordinated independent expenditures, have a greater potential for creating corruption.

Prior to 2011, Illinois was among five states to allow unrestricted donations from corporations or individuals to candidates. Lawmakers placed these limits after a number of highly-publicized corruption cases, including the arrests of two Illinois governors.

In 2006, Gov. George Ryan was jailed on federal corruption charges. Three years later, Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted on charges of bribery. In one instance, FBI tapes revealed Blagojevich requesting $100,000 in the form of a campaign contribution from a horse racing track owner in exchange for huge industry subsidies.

The push in Illinois to increase direct contribution limits to offset the flow of outside corporate spending threatens to undo the regulations prompted by the scandals, say advocates for reform.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday reversed a Montana law that banned outside spending by corporations. But state and local governments are free to set limits on donations made directly to candidates.

In March, Connecticut lawmakers considered a proposal eliminating certain limits on campaign fundraising. But the initiative did not make it through the state legislature.

Malloy, the first governor elected through a publicly financed campaign, said that the proposal would level the playing field for other publicly financed candidates that face wealthy super PACs.

In Los Angeles, a city ethics commission is considering a proposal to raise the 27-year-old campaign donation caps for local elections. City Council President Herb Wesson feared that without raising the contribution limits, city candidates could not compete against the unlimited spending from the super PACs.

According to the Los Angeles Times, he told a panel in December, “If it were me, I'd say let's have no limits at all but just report [donations] faster.”

More changes could be on the way, according to Trey Grayson, the director of Harvard University’s Institute for Politics and former Kentucky secretary of state.

Super PAC spending in upcoming local elections, according to Grayson, could spur state legislators to raise or eliminate campaign contribution limits and increase disclosure laws. Rather than being proactive, lawmakers will likely react once they see how outside groups are affecting state and local races, he said.

Super PAC Liberty for All played a huge role in a Kentucky GOP primary in May, spending about twice as much as any candidate for the 4th District state House seat. With the help of super PAC funding, tea party candidate Thomas Massie beat six Republicans to win the nomination with 45 percent of the vote.

Now, state lawmakers are pushing to more than double the campaign contribution limits for individuals, from $1,000 to $2,500 per candidate.

According to a report from the National Conference on State Legislatures on the 2011-2012 election cycle, just four states have no limits on candidate contributions — Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia.

Seven states — Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas — restrict contributions by unions and corporations, but allow unlimited contributions from individuals.

Supreme Court rejects Montana's election spending law

Montana,United States — 2012-07-13T02:21:05-04:00

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision to allow unlimited corporate and union spending in federal elections, upheld Monday, also effectively wiped out similar prohibitions in 24 states.

Most states bowed to the original high court ruling, but Montana’s Supreme Court backed its own century-old law banning such expenditures in a 5-2 vote in December, thumbing its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, the nation’s highest court hit back, reversing Montana’s law in a 5-4 vote, sending a clear message to the 23 other states that had similar bans in place at the time of the decision.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does,” the court said in a brief opinion.

The 24 affected states have scrambled to address the fallout from the Citizens United decision. Nineteen have crafted new laws, some requiring disclosure of spending by outside groups, to address the formerly banned flow of corporate dollars, according to the Corporate Reform Coalition.

Montana’s court ruled that a history of corruption gave the state a compelling interest in maintaining its ban on corporate money being used to sway state elections. The U.S. Supreme Court was unconvinced.

“Montana has had a target on its back,” said Edwin Bender, of Montana’s National Institute on Money in State Politics. “Absolutely we are vulnerable and that’s why the state defended its spending limits and drew the line.”

Montana’s law was frozen by the U.S. Supreme Court in February.

Arguing the case for Montana was Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock, who is also in a tightly contested governor’s race.

Copper kings

Montana passed the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act to rule out corporate contributions to candidates, as well as corporate independent spending to expressly support or oppose a candidate or political party.

Unlike the Citizens United decision, Montana’s law did not address union spending.

The state’s Supreme Court justices cited wealthy “Copper Kings” who had literally bought their way into elected office amid scandal, prompting the state’s law.

In the late 1800s, Montana industrialist W.A. Clark admitted to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to state legislators who, at the time, elected candidates to the U.S. Senate. A bribery investigation in 1900 led to Clark’s resignation.

The state’s high court ruled that global mining interests maintain the power to corrupt elections in modern-day Montana.

“The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending,” said the court, “is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The state’s ban came under attack soon after the Citizens United decision was handed down.

In 2010, Western Tradition Partnership — a “free-market” organization “dedicated to fighting environmental extremism" — sued the state. The group, which changed its name to American Tradition Partnership in 2011, argued that Citizens United made the Montana ban on corporate spending unconstitutional.

Bullock, the state’s attorney general, did not agree, nor did the state’s Commission of Political Practices, which claimed that Western Tradition Partnership, a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization, had illegally raised and spent money attacking candidates in the 2008 elections without registering with the state or disclosing its donors.

American Tradition was joined by Champion Painting and a gun rights nonprofit called Montana Sports Shooting Association, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association. In October 2010, District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock sided with the corporations, noting the “the Copper Kings are a long-time gone to their tombs.”

Spending floods Montana election

American Tradition Partnership garnered the support of Terre Haute, Ind.-based lawyer James Bopp, who has argued against contribution limits in cases across the country, including Citizens United.

While the state awaited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Montanans voted in the state’s June 5 primary — and American Tradition Partnership played a major role.

The group claimed victory, announcing two days after the vote that it “sent mailers and ran radio ads educating the public on candidates’ positions in at least 14 targeted districts, resulting in 12 pro-jobs candidates advancing to the general election.”

American Tradition has registered as a PAC this year, but its filings with the state show no trace of spending as of June 25.

American Tradition Partnership has operated under growing scrutiny since its emergence in 2008. The group has changed its name several times since its founding, and has filed with the IRS as both a 501 (c)(4) and as a 527. The group’s IRS filings contain scant information and are signed by its first treasurer Scott Shire, a GOP operative who was fined for campaign violations in Colorado in 2008.

The group and its 501(c)(3) arm American Tradition Institute have launched several lawsuits, including two additional challenges in U.S. District Court to Montana’s limits on direct contributions to candidates and to the state’s disclosure laws.

Other suits include a 2009 challenge to a Colorado city’s campaign finance law, a legal battle to get the University of Virginia to release emails by climate scientist Mike Mann, and another opposing a Colorado law mandating transitions to renewable energy.

In 2010, the Montana Commission on Political Practices, the state’s election agency concluded a two-year investigation of Western Tradition Partnership — the forerunner to American Tradition Partnership. The findings include allegations that the nonprofit had secretly raised corporate money and funneled it into a state-registered PAC called the Coalition for Energy and Environment, which spent money on 19 legislative races in 2008.

The Montana Supreme Court ruling cited the group’s fund-raising activity as an example of persistent corruption in the state.

Ahead of a 2010 election in which Western Tradition Partnership targeted several candidates with mailers, the organization was set to flout Montana’s disclosure rules:

“We’re not required to report the name or the amount of any contribution that we receive. So, if you decide to support this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible,” the group wrote in a note to potential donors. “You can just sit back on election night and see what a difference you’ve made.”

Montana and friends

Montana is not alone in its fight against the Citizens United decision. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a brief signed by 22 states and the District of Columbia backing Montana in May. Eight of the signing states had laws affected by the ruling.

Schneiderman’s brief argues that states “face a much greater risk of domination” from outside groups and therefore have a greater interest in ensuring the impartial election of local officials.

Before the decision, 14 states banned political activity from corporations and unions, nine more banned political activity only by corporations, and one state, New Hampshire, banned political activity only by unions, according to a report last year from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Laws passed in Alaska, California and North Carolina require corporate groups funding campaign activity to list their top donors in every ad. In Connecticut, the CEO from the group must appear in each ad to claim responsibility.

Five states — Alabama, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana — had bans in place, but have not passed new legislation to deal with the aftermath.

The U.S. Supreme Court leveled a blow to Montana’s long history of low-dollar elections, but Bender says the state’s political culture cannot easily be overturned.

“When someone comes in from outside and tries to dominate, there’s going to be a backlash,” he said. “The thing about big money in a low-money state, it’s going to stick out like a sore thumb.”