Very good read on the recent history of campaign finance by Craig Unger Not long ago, Karl Rove seemed toxic: the brains of a disastrous presidency, tarred by scandal. Today, as the mastermind of a billion-dollar war chest—and with surrogates in place in the Romney campaign—he’s the de facto leader of the Republican Party. But in Rove’s long game, 2012 may be just the beginning. Read more on Vanity fair
Pop-upView Separately

Very good read on the recent history of campaign finance by Craig Unger

Not long ago, Karl Rove seemed toxic: the brains of a disastrous presidency, tarred by scandal. Today, as the mastermind of a billion-dollar war chest—and with surrogates in place in the Romney campaign—he’s the de facto leader of the Republican Party. But in Rove’s long game, 2012 may be just the beginning.

Read more on Vanity fair

Karl Rove's Catch-22 | Mother Jones

justinspoliticalcorner:

For all the headlines and hand-wringing about super-PACs, it is dark-money nonprofits like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity that dominate the political money wars. These politically oriented groups, which keep their donors secret, outspent super-PACs 3-to-2 in the 2010 elections. Through the spring of 2012, 91 percent of advertising by independent groups came from nonprofits and big business trade groups. And a growing pile of evidence suggests that it’s these nonprofits, notsuper-PACs, hauling in the bulk of corporate political cash.

But come Saturday, the dark-money nonprofits face a dilemma. A high-profile court case known asVan Hollen v. FEC threatens to shine an unwelcome beam of sunlight on donors bankrolling these organizations. Nothing’s stopping Crossroads GPS or AFP from running more “issue” ads hitting Obama and other Democrats (that is, ads that don’t explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against”). Except now nonprofits will have to reveal who funded those spots.

ark-money nonprofits don’t want to name names. Their pitch to donors includes the promise of anonymity and a shield from public scrutiny. This means that Crossroads GPS and other politically active nonprofits—which aren’t supposed to make politicking their primary purpose—have to rethink their ad strategy, election experts say. Do they shift money to super-PACs? Go dark in the months before the election? Find another loophole to run ads and keep their donors secret?

Tax and election law experts say that, short of shutting down, any new strategy carries significant risks. Run-ins with the Internal Revenue Service or the Federal Election Commission, the federal elections watchdog, could be on the horizon. “It’s a tough strategic choice for these groups,” says Joseph Birkenstock, an election law attorney and former chief counsel at the Democratic National Committee.

Here’s the quick-and-dirty version of how nonprofits including Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, and pro-Obama Priorities USA, among others, ended up in this bind. Until recently, nonprofits had exploited a federal loophole allowing them to run issue ads without disclosing the sources of their funding. These so-called social welfare organizations may also run ads directly backing or opposing candidates, but can’t run too many of them at the risk of running afoul of the IRS for being too political.

In 2011, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and pro-reform advocacy groups sued the Federal Election Commission to close that loophole. This March, a federal district court judge agreed with Van Hollen, and a second federal judge refused to stay that decision. The loophole was gone. (The case is currently on appeal.)

In other words, the rule book has changed mid-election for politically active nonprofits, and the first effects will be felt Saturday. Now, if AFP or Priorities USA runs a TV or radio ad mentioning Obama or Romney without endorsing or opposing a candidate, the group’s donors must be named. Starting in early September, if they mention any federal candidate, donors must be named.

One dark-money heavyweight, the US Chamber of Commerce, has already said it will change its game plan. As Chamber president Tom Donohue explained in May, the Chamber will no longer run the thinly veiled “issue” ads mentioning a candidate that it did in 2010 and 2011. Instead, the group—which says it’ll spend $50 million during the 2012 cycle—will run ads outright urging voters to oppose or support a candidate. The Chamber can get away with this because, after decades of conservatives and libertarians chipping away at the law, a loophole opened letting donors escape disclosure for “vote for” and “vote against” ads by nonprofit groups.

h/t: Andy Kroll at Mother Jones

In this new series, we will attempt to explore the main characters evolving around the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Each “card” will represent a character who symbolize one aspect of the Citizen United case. These characters in fact are either directly linked to the case or are acting against or in favor of it. The full consequences of that decision still have to be determined as the 2012 Presidential campaign is still very much in its beginning. Yet, we can already evaluate the tremendous impact that Super PACs have on campaigns and political communication. KARL ROVE | Political Consultant, Founder of American Crossroads The former Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Bush administration is a long time conservative figure. He’s currently adviser and board member of American Crossroads, a 527 organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office. According to Opensecret.org,  American Crossroads is a conservative group spearheaded by top Republican operatives. Karl Rove, the former top strategist for President George W. Bush, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie encouraged the group’s formation and solicited donors for funds. Formed in 2010, American Crossroads initially reported its activities to the Internal Revenue Service as a so-called 527 organization. After the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission federal court rule, which allowed outside groups that expressly advocate for or against federal candidates to raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and individuals, American Crossroads registered with the FEC as an independent expenditure-only committee, better than as a super PAC. Steven Law — who previously worked in Bush’s Labor Department, served as Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s chief of staff, was the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and served as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s general counsel — heads the group. It regularly disclosed its donors, but Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a spin-off registered with the IRS as a 501(c)4 nonprofit group, does not.  See the numbers here American Crossroads is very active during this Presidential Campaign and since the Republican Primaries are over, the organization starts to attack Mitt Romney’s opponent, Barack Obama.  According to Politico reporter Robin Bravender,  The Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads picked up steam in fundraising last month, raking in $4.6 million and stockpiling nearly $30 million to use against President Barack Obama and other Democrats. American Crossroads raised more in May than it has in any month since January after raising less than $2 million in both March and April. But despite the slight dropoff in recent months, the super PAC has continued to grow its cash reserves by spending relatively little. Read more on politico.com Part of the Rove’s organization, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation that works in conjunction with American Crossroads. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Crossroads GPS’s primary purpose is the advancement of social welfare including public policy advocacy, although it is permitted to engage in political spending as well. Crossroads GPS is required to report what it spends, but it is not required to publicly disclose any donor information. Mid june 2012, in a letter to Crossroads — and a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission — the president’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, demanded that Crossroads divulge its donors because it is a political committee and not, as it calls itself, a “social welfare” organization. The GOP-aligned group Crossroads GPS has spent $7 million to air a new ad attacking President Barack Obama for “growing our debt faster than our economy.” The ad, called “Stopwatch,” begins airing in 10 states on Tuesday night. It is part of a $25 million effort to focus national attention on jobs, the economy, taxes and debt. (Read more on the Huffington Post) Next Post: Stephen Colbert
View Separately

In this new series, we will attempt to explore the main characters evolving around the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Each “card” will represent a character who symbolize one aspect of the Citizen United case.

These characters in fact are either directly linked to the case or are acting against or in favor of it. The full consequences of that decision still have to be determined as the 2012 Presidential campaign is still very much in its beginning. Yet, we can already evaluate the tremendous impact that Super PACs have on campaigns and political communication.

KARL ROVE | Political Consultant, Founder of American Crossroads

The former Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Bush administration is a long time conservative figure. He’s currently adviser and board member of American Crossroads, a 527 organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office.

According to Opensecret.org, 

American Crossroads is a conservative group spearheaded by top Republican operatives. Karl Rove, the former top strategist for President George W. Bush, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie encouraged the group’s formation and solicited donors for funds. Formed in 2010, American Crossroads initially reported its activities to the Internal Revenue Service as a so-called 527 organization. After the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission federal court rule, which allowed outside groups that expressly advocate for or against federal candidates to raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and individuals, American Crossroads registered with the FEC as an independent expenditure-only committee, better than as a super PAC. Steven Law — who previously worked in Bush’s Labor Department, served as Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s chief of staff, was the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and served as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s general counsel — heads the group. It regularly disclosed its donors, but Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a spin-off registered with the IRS as a 501(c)4 nonprofit group, does not. 

See the numbers here

American Crossroads is very active during this Presidential Campaign and since the Republican Primaries are over, the organization starts to attack Mitt Romney’s opponent, Barack Obama. 

According to Politico reporter Robin Bravender, 

The Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads picked up steam in fundraising last month, raking in $4.6 million and stockpiling nearly $30 million to use against President Barack Obama and other Democrats. American Crossroads raised more in May than it has in any month since January after raising less than $2 million in both March and April. But despite the slight dropoff in recent months, the super PAC has continued to grow its cash reserves by spending relatively little. 
Read more on politico.com

Part of the Rove’s organization, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation that works in conjunction with American Crossroads. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Crossroads GPS’s primary purpose is the advancement of social welfare including public policy advocacy, although it is permitted to engage in political spending as well. Crossroads GPS is required to report what it spends, but it is not required to publicly disclose any donor information.

Mid june 2012, in a letter to Crossroads — and a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission — the president’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, demanded that Crossroads divulge its donors because it is a political committee and not, as it calls itself, a “social welfare” organization.

The GOP-aligned group Crossroads GPS has spent $7 million to air a new ad attacking President Barack Obama for “growing our debt faster than our economy.”

The ad, called “Stopwatch,” begins airing in 10 states on Tuesday night. It is part of a $25 million effort to focus national attention on jobs, the economy, taxes and debt. (Read more on the Huffington Post)

Next Post: Stephen Colbert

In this new series, we will attempt to explore the main characters evolving around the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Each “card” will represent a character who symbolize one aspect of the Citizen United case. These characters in fact are either directly linked to the case or are acting against or in favor of it. The full consequences of that decision still have to be determined as the 2012 Presidential campaign is still very much in its beginning. Yet, we can already evaluate the tremendous impact that Super PACs have on campaigns and political communication. JOHN G. ROBERTS | 17th Chief Justice of the United States UPDATE: On june 25, 2012 the Supreme Court declined to revisit its Citizens United decision, the court summarily reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had upheld a state law limiting independent political spending by corporations. That decision, the United States Supreme Court said, was flatly at odds with Citizens United, which said the First Amendment allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they like to support or oppose political candidates. (Read more on the NYT)   John G. Roberts can certainly be considered as the architect behind the Citizens United v. FEC decision. As Jeffrey Toobin explains in The New Yorker on May 21, 2012 :  When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. (…) Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. (Read more) John G. Roberts was nominated by former President Georges W. Bush on September 29, 2005 after Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy, and he did “not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document”. Roberts analogized judges to baseball umpires: “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” This Originalist approach of the law contrast with the method and the view expressed by John G. Roberts in the Citizens United decision. This questions the position of the Supreme Court and the influence of John G. Roberts :  They feel that the Court was not playing fair in characterizing precedents. This cynicism is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts pledged to avoid when he was elevated to the High Court. As someone who continues to wish the Chief Justice well, I hope that he will in time achieve his original vision of collegiality and minimalism. To do so, the Court must characterize precedents in terms all of the Justices can accept. ( Jeffrey Rosen, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy)  No doubt that the Citizens United v. FEC decision is the result of Roberts and subsequently Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vision. The impact on the elections - the locals, States, or Federal ones - would have been much less. Next post : Barack Obama
View Separately

In this new series, we will attempt to explore the main characters evolving around the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. Each “card” will represent a character who symbolize one aspect of the Citizen United case.

These characters in fact are either directly linked to the case or are acting against or in favor of it. The full consequences of that decision still have to be determined as the 2012 Presidential campaign is still very much in its beginning. Yet, we can already evaluate the tremendous impact that Super PACs have on campaigns and political communication.

JOHN G. ROBERTS | 17th Chief Justice of the United States

UPDATE: 
On june 25, 2012 the Supreme Court declined to revisit its Citizens United decision, the court summarily reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had upheld a state law limiting independent political spending by corporations. That decision, the United States Supreme Court said, was flatly at odds with Citizens United, which said the First Amendment allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they like to support or oppose political candidates. (Read more on the NYT)  

John G. Roberts can certainly be considered as the architect behind the Citizens United v. FEC decision. As Jeffrey Toobin explains in The New Yorker on May 21, 2012 : 

When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. (…) Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court.
(Read more)

John G. Roberts was nominated by former President Georges W. Bush on September 29, 2005 after Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy, and he did “not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document”. Roberts analogized judges to baseball umpires: “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

This Originalist approach of the law contrast with the method and the view expressed by John G. Roberts in the Citizens United decision. This questions the position of the Supreme Court and the influence of John G. Roberts : 

They feel that the Court was not playing fair in characterizing precedents. This cynicism is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts pledged to avoid when he was elevated to the High Court. As someone who continues to wish the Chief Justice well, I hope that he will in time achieve his original vision of collegiality and minimalism. To do so, the Court must characterize precedents in terms all of the Justices can accept. ( Jeffrey Rosen, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy) 

No doubt that the Citizens United v. FEC decision is the result of Roberts and subsequently Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vision. The impact on the elections - the locals, States, or Federal ones - would have been much less.

Next post : Barack Obama

Money & Elections In Jan 2010, the Supreme Court deregulated the campaign finance laws in the United States, with a decision known as Citizens United vs. FEC. This decision doesn’t change all the limits of campaign financing. For example, an individual can still donate $2500 to a candidate for each election, $5000 per election to a PAC (Political Action committee) or $30.800 per year to a party. However, the real beneficiaries of the Citizens United decision are the Super PACs.The main characteristic of the Super PACs is that they can raise unlimited funds to support any candidate of their choice. This support is mainly showed through political advertisements, which are for the most part “negative ads” attacking an opponent (see the American Crossroads ad against Barack Obama, or this ad by Priority USA attacking Mitt Romney). The only requirement is that the Supers PACs must remain completely independent and are forbidden to coordinate their communication efforts with the candidate they support and their party.  This does not prevent all contenders for the White House to have one or more affiliated Super PACs. For example, Restore our Future supports Mitt Romney, Winning our Future is a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC. Even Barack Obama is supported by Priority USA, even though he was against the Citizens United decision. Federal authorities know the identity of the donors for these Super PACs. The Super PACs have indeed the obligation to file with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the donor names and the amount of donations. For donors who wish to remain anonymous, there is another way. The 501c4s. These groups are NGO’s that doesn’t have to disclose the names of their donors but - like the Super PACs – they can raise as much money as they wish.The money spent in TV ads by these groups is called “independent expenditures” and between 2006 and 2012, these “independent expenditures” increased by 338%. At the same time, untraceable donations increased by 47%. Since the beginning of the Republican primaries in 2011, independent groups have spent nearly $ 76.6 million, all candidates combined. For the 2012 Presidential elections, American Crossroads, a Super PAC formed by Karl Rove, former G.W Bush Senior advisor, has planned to spend nearly $ 240 million.The Kock brothers have planned to spend nearly $ 100 million. Consequences for the average Tv spectator are this: In Iowa, nearly 12 ads were broadcasted per hour. During the primaries in South Carolina nearly 182 ads were aired in a week. And more recently, for the primaries in Florida, Romney bombarded the local TV viewers with 12.000 ads a week before the vote (src: Wesleyan Media Project). Some of these ads can cost up to $750.000, sometimes even more. All this for one purpose: influence American votes. If you want to know more about this, support our project “Moneyocracy”, pledge a couple of dollar on kickstarter to help us making this documentary and don’t forget to like our facebook page. We want to make this with you. If you have any question related to the project, don’t hesitate to contact us directly. Thanks 
Pop-upView Separately

Money & Elections

In Jan 2010, the Supreme Court deregulated the campaign finance laws in the United States, with a decision known as Citizens United vs. FEC.

This decision doesn’t change all the limits of campaign financing. For example, an individual can still donate $2500 to a candidate for each election, $5000 per election to a PAC (Political Action committee) or $30.800 per year to a party.

However, the real beneficiaries of the Citizens United decision are the Super PACs.
The main characteristic of the Super PACs is that they can raise unlimited funds to support any candidate of their choice. This support is mainly showed through political advertisements, which are for the most part “negative ads” attacking an opponent (see the American Crossroads ad against Barack Obama, or this ad by Priority USA attacking Mitt Romney). The only requirement is that the Supers PACs must remain completely independent and are forbidden to coordinate their communication efforts with the candidate they support and their party. 

This does not prevent all contenders for the White House to have one or more affiliated Super PACs. For example, Restore our Future supports Mitt Romney, Winning our Future is a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC. Even Barack Obama is supported by Priority USA, even though he was against the Citizens United decision.

Federal authorities know the identity of the donors for these Super PACs. The Super PACs have indeed the obligation to file with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) the donor names and the amount of donations.

For donors who wish to remain anonymous, there is another way. The 501c4s.

These groups are NGO’s that doesn’t have to disclose the names of their donors but - like the Super PACs – they can raise as much money as they wish.
The money spent in TV ads by these groups is called “independent expenditures” and between 2006 and 2012, these “independent expenditures” increased by 338%. At the same time, untraceable donations increased by 47%.

Since the beginning of the Republican primaries in 2011, independent groups have spent nearly $ 76.6 million, all candidates combined.

For the 2012 Presidential elections, American Crossroads, a Super PAC formed by Karl Rove, former G.W Bush Senior advisor, has planned to spend nearly $ 240 million.The Kock brothers have planned to spend nearly $ 100 million.

Consequences for the average Tv spectator are this: In Iowa, nearly 12 ads were broadcasted per hour. During the primaries in South Carolina nearly 182 ads were aired in a week. And more recently, for the primaries in Florida, Romney bombarded the local TV viewers with 12.000 ads a week before the vote (src: Wesleyan Media Project). Some of these ads can cost up to $750.000, sometimes even more.

All this for one purpose: influence American votes.

If you want to know more about this, support our project “Moneyocracy”, pledge a couple of dollar on kickstarter to help us making this documentary and don’t forget to like our facebook page. We want to make this with you. If you have any question related to the project, don’t hesitate to contact us directly. Thanks