The Center for Public Integrity

Outside spenders are getting in the holiday spirit with Halloween-themed ads designed to scare voters away from the targeted candidates.

A foggy cemetery, a haunted house and shadowy figures loom in House Majority PAC’s ad, as the narrator speaks in a quivering voice pretending to be a ghost, explaining why voters should be afraid of Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco, the Republican candidate running in Texas’ 23rd District.

The narrator suddenly cuts the ghost voice and says, “This isn’t a Halloween story, though it is scary. It’s Quico Canseco’s — a person and a story that fits right into Washington.”

One of the ads main claims — that Canseco owes hundreds of thousands in liens over unpaid payroll taxes and contracting fees — was reported by the San Antonio Express-News in July 2010.

Canseco disputes the claim. He said the bulk of what is owed is a result of disagreements between contractors and tenants on properties he owns and that he was only named because he is the landlord.

Canseco faces Democratic challenger Pete Gallego, a Texas state representative. House Majority PAC’s Halloween ad is part of a $415,000 buy in Texas’ 23rd District, a Republican-leaning swing district.

The race has seen $6.6 million in outside spending, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Conservative spenders are also using the holiday to their advantage.

Super PACs and nonprofits unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision have spent more than $840 million on the 2012 election, with the overwhelming majority favoring Republicans, particularly GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

An estimated $577 million, or roughly 69 percent, was spent by conservative groups, compared with $237 million spent by liberal groups, or about 28 percent, with the remainder expended by other organizations.

Of all outside spending in the 2012 election, more than $450 million was dedicated to the presidential election with more than $350 million spent helping Romney and about $100 million spent to help President Barack Obama.

The spending helped close the gap on Obama’s considerable fundraising advantage over Romney. As Election Day approaches, Romney and Obama are neck-and-neck in national polls.

The totals are from a joint analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity. The Centers' analysis covers the period from Jan. 1, 2011 through Oct. 28, 2012, and does not include independent spending by the political party committees.

The final tally will be higher as spending continues to accelerate before Election Day.

Candidate-specific super PACs, once exclusively associated with presidential hopefuls, have moved down-ticket and are now supporting candidates in congressional races this election.

Super PACs devoted solely to supporting a congressional candidate spent $28 million in the 2012 election with about $22 million going toward helping conservative candidates, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of campaign data.

Federal Election Commission rules prohibit "coordination" between a candidate and an outside spending group, but many super PACs have gotten around those rules by hiring operatives who previously worked for the campaign.

The groups became prominent during the Republican presidential primary when each candidate had a supporting chorus in the form of a super PAC. The largest by far was Restore Our Future, which backs GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Restore Our Future raised nearly $133 million this election cycle, or one of every five dollars raised by super PACs.

By far the biggest player in the congressional candidate-specific super PAC world is the Texas Conservatives Fund, which spent $5.5 million on independent expenditures, all of it during the Texas GOP primary battle for U.S. Senate.

The money was spent in opposition to Ted Cruz, the tea party candidate, in hopes of electing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was considered the favorite of the Republican establishment. Cruz won the primary and is expected to easily win the general election.

In the 2012 election, nonprofits have been the preferred vehicle for donors who prefer to keep their identities secret. But with the right lawyers, super PACs, which are supposedly transparent about their donors, can accomplish the same feat.

Social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)(4)s by the Internal Revenue Service, file tax returns with the IRS. The names of their top donors are revealed to the IRS — but not to the public.

Super PACs, on the other hand, do report their donors. In some instances, though, those donors are nonprofits. Or the funds might come from shell corporations, which have passed through millions of dollars to the political organizations from unidentified donors in this election.

Aetna’s oops

Occasionally, the veil is lifted on the secrecy of these groups, sometimes inadvertently.

Insurance giant Aetna accidentally disclosed to insurance regulators earlier this year that in 2011, it had contributed $3 million to the American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) group that has spent $11 million targeting mostly Democratic candidates for Congress.

The company later scrubbed the disclosure from its filing and declined to elaborate on it despite demands from institutional shareholders for an explanation.

Editor's note: This story was also published by the Center for Responsive Politics, where Viveca Novak is the editorial and communications director.

Illinois' 17th Congressional District looks like it was drawn by an X-acto knife on crack, pitted with divots large and small and tendrils leading nowhere.

This misshapen plot of land, dubbed the "rabbit on a skateboard," is the result of a redistricting process that made it slightly more Democratic territory.

That means first-term Rep. Bobby Schilling, a Republican, doesn't exactly have a smooth glide-path to re-election. In fact, he’s in a fight — an expensive one. Through Oct. 17, Schilling and his Democratic opponent, Cheri Bustos together have spent $3.3 million on the race ($1.9 by Schilling, $1.4 million by Bustos).

But that's not the half of it. Another $6 million has been spent by outside groups, a cool $2.7 million more than the candidates themselves have laid out.

That makes the contest one of 26 House elections in which outside spending adds up to more than spending by the candidates, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee was hit for the second time in as many weeks over an alleged affair he had with a patient, whom he reportedly pressured to have an abortion.

The second ad from the Democratic House Majority PAC, brings the super PAC’s buys in the race to $280,000, according to a press release.

The new ad, “Quotes,” features the narrator quoting from the Chattanooga Times Free Press’ endorsement of his Democratic opponent, Tennessee state Sen. Eric Stewart.

“DesJarlais is not only a hypocrite, but a fraud,” the editorial reads, citing that he claims to be an anti-abortion advocate yet allegedly encouraged his pregnant mistress a decade ago to undergo the procedure.

So far, House Majority PAC is the only outside spender in this race to invest significant funds. “Trust,” House Majority PAC’s first ad opposing DesJarlais, debuted Oct. 19 and cost $100,000, according to a press release.

The super PAC’s top donor is Newsweb CEO Fred Eychaner who has contributed $3.8 million. Eychaner has given $12 million to Democratic super PACs.

After Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, cancelled more than $800,000 in network television advertising last week, the conservative Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC stepped in to fill the void.

Renacci, a Republican just finishing his freshman term, faces Rep. Betty Sutton, a three-term Democrat, in Ohio’s newly redrawn 16th District, which has attracted more outside spending than any other House race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — more than $8.8 million.

Chevron Corp., ranked No. 3 on the Fortune 500 list of largest U.S. companies, made a $2.5 million contribution on Oct. 7 to the Leadership Fund, which is dedicated to electing Republicans to the House and Senate, as The Center for Public Integrity reported last week.

Renacci said the market had reached saturation and people were simply tuning out the ads. The New York Times reported that next to Las Vegas, the Cleveland area has seen more political ads than any other market.

This weekend’s “Hall of Fame,” the Leadership Fund’s newest anti-Sutton ad, is the second in a $1.8 million buy, according to a press release.

Ranking: 10

Total contributions to super PACs: $9.8 million*

• $9.8 million to RGA Right Direction PAC (pro-Republican), formerly known as the RGA Ohio PAC

Notable state-level contributions:

• $8.3 million to the Florida Republican Party (2010)
• $6 million to Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (2010)
• $3 million to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (2010)

Background:

The Republican Governors Association’s appearance on a list of top donors to super PACs — formed to spend money on federal races — at first glance appears to be a mistake. But a close look at the Washington, D.C.-based “527” organization’s disclosure filings shows it is using super PACs to funnel funds into state races.

The recipient of the RGA’s generosity is a super PAC called “RGA Right Direction PAC.” The super PAC takes the money it receives from the RGA — which, as a 527, can accept unlimited funds from corporations and wealthy individuals — and spends it on state races.

In an October 2012 filing, Right Direction disclosed a $250,000 contribution to North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who assumed the job in 2010, when then-Gov. John Hoeven resigned to become a U.S. senator. In North Dakota, corporate donations to candidates are prohibited, but contributions from political action committees to candidates are unlimited, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Editor's note: This story was first published by the Center for Responsive Politics, where Robert Maguire is a researcher and Viveca Novak is the editorial and communications director.

The origin story of the secretive nonprofit that is leading efforts to invalidate Montana’s campaign finance laws keeps getting murkier.

In a document filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the group claimed Jacob Jabs as its “primary donor” who had “agreed to provide $300,000” to get the group rolling in 2008.

It appears the group was referring to Jacob Jabs, the president and CEO of American Furniture Warehouse, based in Colorado, where ATP was created.

But a spokeswoman for Jabs said he's never heard of the group. ATP’s current executive director says he wasn’t with the organization at the time. The woman who signed the document would not return calls from the Center for Public Integrity.

“Someone is not coming clean,” said Marcus Owens, the former director of the division that handles nonprofit corporations at the IRS. “A knowing effort to mislead the IRS is a crime and people go to jail for that.”

Jabs has been a major supporter of Republican candidates and causes. He gave heavily to an anti-union ballot initiative in Colorado in 2008, and is a donor to Mitt Romney.

As for the gift to ATP, Jabs claims it didn’t happen.

“Mr. Jabs has not heard of this group, nor did he give them money,” said Charlie Saulis, Jabs’ spokeswoman.

Athena Dalton signed the September 2008 letter to the IRS which referenced a communication with the furniture magnate, during which Jabs “assured us that he will no longer contribute” if ATP did not receive its exempt status in the next two weeks.