Showing posts with label super PACs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label super PACs. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Theologians: U.S. campaign finance system is unjust

[HT: NPR]  Just in case any of my Judeo-Christian conservative friends actually care what their Judeo-Christian theologians think...

... They agree that America's pay-to-play political system with unlimited political contributions is unjust. Here's the report's conclusion [emphasis mine]:

How can religious teachings help us shape a more just role for money in the American political system? What kind of theological principles should be applied to the problem? The ten theologians introduced in this volume offer many compelling candidates: Heed the voice of the poorest Americans. Develop a theology of corporations. Remember that justice requires a multiplicity of voices and fair economic outcomes – not just fair procedures

With $6 billion running through our election cycles and many more dollars spent on lobbying, it is time for people of faith and moral commitment to get more involved in reforming the role of money in American politics. We are called to apply the teachings and wisdom of our religious traditions. We are called to raise our voices and offer constructive action for a more just political system.

I've said it before: if we could fix campaign finance, most of America's intractable political problems would take care of themselves, because the majority usually knows what's best -- the One Percent just doesn't let them get their way most times.


June 2014
Auburn Theological Seminary

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

KY Senate race could break spending record


Famous Kentucky politician Henry Clay, if he were alive today, would be so proud that three candidates (and their super PACs) are about to spend the yearly income of more than 4,300 Kentuckians in their campaigns for the U.S. Senate.

Seriously though, what will the Tea Parties say when their hero Rand Paul either stumps for McConnell, the face of "establishment Republicans," and/or refuses to endorse McConnell's rival from the Tea Parties, businessman Matt Bevin?  Won't they feel just a teensy-weensy bit manipulated and taken for granted in Paul and McConnell's game of thrones?



By Chris Cillizza
August 11, 2013 | Washington Post

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Big chart explains byzantine campaign finance regulation

Long-time readers (all three of you) know that campaign finance is one of my pet issues. If we had shorter, publicly financed campaigns, a whole slew of "unsolvable" political problems would solve themselves, because then politicians would have to pay attention to us voters, not campaign contributors and lobbyists who pay for favors.

Critics who call the U.S. tax code complex should take a look below at our Byzantine campaign finance system!  

And for the record, let me say again that the IRS was correct to pay special attention to groups applying for tax-exempt status with "tea party" in their name. That's party as in political party, as in political activity.  I for one refuse to wink at their open deceit like our stupid tax laws do.


By Sunlight Foundation 
May 17, 2013

The controversy over the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for non-profit status from Tea Party groups has put a spotlight on a subject with which we at the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group are all too painfully familiar: The migraine-producing complexity of the nation's campaign finance system. To shed some light on the ongoing debate, we've decided to share what we know.

As often is the case with systems worthy of Rube Goldberg, it's easier to draw than to describe.



The graphic above shows why its so hard to track campaign money: Those who raise it report to one (or more) of three federal agencies, depending on how they raise the money, how they spend the money and how much of it they spend and raise.

The starting point for understanding what different kinds of organizations that spend money on politics can and cannot do is the Internal Revenue Code, which contains several sections defining different types of tax exempt organizations and outlining what these organizations can and cannot do if they are organized under a certain section of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 527, for example, defines in some 3,500 words what a political committee is, what types of its income are exempt from tax (contributions, transfers from other 527 committees), what sort of expenditures it can make, and what its tax exempt purpose is ("influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected, or appointed").

But it doesn't end there: In addition to the Internal Revenue Code's definitions, these these organizations are regulated by federal law and state laws. For example, the Internal Revenue Code does not require nonprofits organized under section 501(c)4 to disclose their donors to the public. But the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act called for such groups to disclose their donors if they ran "issue ads" (ones that mention a candidate without saying "vote for" or "vote against him--the FEC has a fuller definition here; it's worth noting it took a 2012 court ruling to force the Federal Election Commission to apply this rule).

Further complicating the picture: Organizations under one of the categories listed above can form sub-organizations under another category. For instance, a labor union or trade association can spawn a 501(c)4, a super PAC and a traditional PAC. Many major givers operate under three or four guises, making the financial influence they exercise over elections especially difficult to track.

Understanding who reports what to whom when is complicated, but here are some general guidelines of what federal agencies are involved in overseeing these organizations, their regulatory authority and the disclosures they require:

Internal Revenue Service

  • Regulates organizations for compliance with tax law.
  • Requires a limited number of 527s--those that do not register with the Federal Election Commission or a state election authority--to disclose information, including initial notices (form 8871), periodic reports of their fundraising and spending (form 8872), an annual information return (form 990) and a tax return if they have taxable income of more than $100 (form 1120-POL). Groups organized under section 527 that file with the Federal Election Commission or state election boards are not required to file with the IRS, unless they have more than $100 in taxable income.
  • Regulates nonprofits organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. These include social welfare organizations like Crossroads GPS (section c4), labor unions like the AFL-CIO (section c5) and trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (section c6). Nonprofits file an initial application for tax exempt status (form 1024) and annual information returns (form 990). They disclose information on grants they make to other organizations, their boards of directors, salaries of their five highest paid employees and amounts paid to their five biggest outside contractors. They do not disclose information on donors.
  • Nonprofits that lobby to influence legislation must disclose the amount expended on lobbying on their 990 forms.

Federal Election Commission

  • Administers and enforces federal election law.
  • Oversees candidate committees, political party committees, political action committees and independent expenditure-only committees--also known as super PACs. All these types of committees are organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code; because they disclose information to the FEC, they do not file disclosures with the IRS.
  • Requires that these political committees file periodic disclosures of their donors, expenditures, loans received and outstanding debts. Committees can choose either monthly or quarterly disclosures.
  • Requires disclosures of independent expenditures--that is, spending on advertising, get-out-the-vote or other activities that aim to either elect or defeat a candidate for federal office. These expenditures must be reported within 48 hours until 20 days before an election, when they must be reported within 24 hours. Anyone making an independent expenditure must file a report: 501c organizations, 527 political committees, individuals and for-profit corporations. Both 48 and 24 hour reports require disclosure of the candidate or candidates supported or opposed, the amount spent, the payee or payees, but do not disclose donations.
  • Adjusts for inflation the limits on the size of donations individuals can make to candidate, party and political action committees (but not super PACs, which can take contributions in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations--including 501c4 nonprofits that don't disclose their donors--and labor unions).
  • Investigates violations of federal election law.

U.S. Department of Labor

Requires some labor unions (those that have private sector or federal employees, including U.S. Postal Service workers) to disclose information on the amount spent on political activities, including itemized spending. Labor unions that represent state and municipal employees are not required to file annual reports with DoL.

Not on the chart, but also peripherally involved in the regulation of political funding and disclosure, through the requirements it imposes on television advertisers:

Federal Communications Commission

Requires all organizations that purchase advertising on television, radio and cable outlets to disclose to the station, in a filing available for public inspection, to disclose the name of the organization, its officers, the amount spent and other information about the ad buy. Generally, these disclosures are only available to review at the offices of the stations, though in 2012, the FCC required the four biggest broadcast outlets in the 50 largest markets to post the disclosures--known as the station's political file--online at the FCC website. Sunlight makes this records readily searchable via our Political Ad Sleuth tool.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Koch barons tell their vassals how to vote

Look what the evil Koch Bros. are up to now.  It looks like a growing corporate trend.  

To settle once and for all which oligarch's vision of America should prevail, we should put one Koch brother in a Celebrity Death Match with George Soros, the other Koch with Warren Buffett.  The Kochs would have size and youth on their side, but if we split them up they'd quickly become confused and demoralized.  

... And then Bill Gates and Larry Ellison could be waiting ringside with clubs just in case the wrong billionaire wins.

That kind of blood sport would be much more civilized than shadowy 503(c)(3) "super PACs" and even less transparent 503(c)(4) "social welfare organizations" turning our election campaigns into latrines of intentional lies and disinformation.


By Mike Elk
October 14, 2012 | In These Times

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Foreigners don't need Super PACs to buy U.S. elections

This expose is long but worth reading.  It should make you angry and sad.  

Take the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance.  Suddenly, last year Republicans all agreed that this pipeline just had to be built for the sake of U.S. jobs and "energy independence."  But would they have been so excited if their GOP Congressional puppet masters had told them that it was meant to pipe Canadian oil to a Saudi refinery to sell on the world market?  The Saudi-backed American Petroleum Institute (API) was mum on those details when it aired pro-pipeline TV ads and attacked unsympathetic Democrats.


Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, foreign companies like Aramco from Saudi Arabia can influence U.S. public opinion and elections, spending undisclosed $ millions.  

"We gotta keep our corporate logo out of the bull's-eye," explained one GOP lobbyist. Don't forget the country's flag.

Thank God (and Dubya) for free -- and very secret -- speech!


By Lee Fang 
August 29, 2012 | In These Times

Friday, February 17, 2012

Obama campaign promises 'not to make Wall St. look bad'

Obama flip-flopped on accepting money from big-money super PACs and he promised to go easy on Wall Street, his biggest donors, during the campaign.

Conservatives, if you think Obama is going to institute state socialism, this should calm your fears. Liberals, if you think Obama has learned anything or will change, think again. He's still a big-corporation guy, standing steadily in the center-right.


By Jillian Berman
February 15, 2012 | Huffington Post