iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

How 'Independent Expenditures' Are Remaking Elections


First Posted: 04/11/11 01:46 PM ET Updated: 06/11/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The 2010 midterm elections were the first of a new era, one in which campaign finance rules no longer limit the amount of money special interests can raise and spend on political advertising.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's dramatic Citizens United ruling in January 2010, much of the initial attention was focused on the possibility that corporations -- suddenly freed from key restrictions -- would start to spend enormous amounts of money directly from their treasuries on political advertising.

But that didn't happen. Ahead of last November's election, only three companies spent a total of $54,500 that way, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Instead, it turns out the big money is flowing into third-party organizations first.

As long as they operate independently of political candidates, Super PACs, a new kind of political action committee legalized last year, can accept unlimited donations -- and they did so in the 2010 election cycle, to the tune of a whopping $65 million. Corporate treasury money accounted for about $15.5 million of that; the rest was individual donations, the CRP estimates.

Add that amount to the spending by preexisting advocacy groups, and the result was that outside spending on elections was almost as high in the 2010 mid-terms as it was during the 2008 presidential election cycle -- and more than four times what it was in the previous mid-term election.

Total Outside Spending

Most groups are still obliged to disclose their donors.

But the most striking aspect of the 2010 cycle was the growth of the so-called "non-disclosing groups." These are nonprofit organizations that are allowed to engage in political campaigning, but don't have to tell the Federal Election Commission who their donors are. These groups used to be barred from explicitly advocating for or against specific candidates. But now they can do pretty much anything, as long as they don't coordinate with a candidate's campaign. And spending has shot up.

The spending of untraceable money has become particularly popular with conservative organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent almost $33 million in the 2010 cycle; the American Action Network; and Karl Rove's nonprofit organization, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies.

Heather Torres, the chief data scientist at AOL, contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The 2010 midterm elections were the first of a new era, one in which campaign finance rules no longer limit the amount of money special interests can raise and spend on political adverti...
WASHINGTON -- The 2010 midterm elections were the first of a new era, one in which campaign finance rules no longer limit the amount of money special interests can raise and spend on political adverti...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 610
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thegreenhornet
civil rights lawyer
05:10 PM on 04/12/2011
However you choose to describe how it works, it is still poison in the well of democracy!
03:16 PM on 04/12/2011
Karl, take my wallet and my credit cards, just for the love of God please don't rap! Your flow makes Vanilla Ice sound like Doctor Dre. That situation had too much whiteness already- you just made it transparent.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:00 PM on 04/12/2011
The purpose of the First Amendment was to guard the rights endowed in individuals as inseparable attributes. Even a petition by an assembly of individuals must be signed by the individuals. The Roberts 5 Assault deceptively highlights “political speech” as if rights exist apart from the individual and can be imputed into property, thereby suppressing evidence that it is the individual the First Amendment protects. The Roberts 5 made the switch like Court Jesters playing a Shell Game with words (e.g. political speech is protected by the First Amendment. C. U. Inc. expressed political speech. Therefore the political speech of C. U. Inc is protected by the First Amendment).

In Logic, the transfer of a human attribute to inanimate property is committing a “Pathetic Fallacy.” Consider that a truck load of manure is property and the ownership thereof can be divided into shares. When people buy those shares it does not transfer the rights of a person to the manure; it is still manure! Likewise, for the Roberts 5 to say that a corporation owned by shareholders, has the rights of a person is committing a “Pathetic Fallacy;” it is B.S!

These are the guys Ike warned us about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Beware; the Military-industrial complex (and all Global Corporations) now have Free $peech Rights. Roberts 5 Decision Mocumentry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIK843842G8

Join
http://progressivesunited.org/

Sign
http://fightwashingtoncorruption.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Raw Ron
Fox news: we distort, you comply
11:37 AM on 04/12/2011
Every time is see Rove I think of a the quintessential republican. Doughy,balding,pasty and terrified of change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
LeftLeanWing
Ah.. I said..Ah Said I said... Proceed Guv'nah
01:06 PM on 04/12/2011
I think of Mr Weatherbee from Archie Comics: Click
02:39 PM on 04/12/2011
All I see is the kid who was bullied all of his life who now has a little bit of power.
photo
camelias and sweet tea
Small drinking village with a shrimping problem
11:26 AM on 04/12/2011
Citizens United will destroy this country. Already is beginning to. Full disclosure should be made by ALL donors to elections.
11:07 AM on 04/12/2011
Disclosure should be required by all who contribute to any political campaign. Who cares about Birth Certificates, why not disclose of the sources of campaign funding? It isn't going to happen. Changes to campaign laws require elected officials to make it law and, when the Corporations can pump money into opposition, no politician is going to go against his or her bank.

Saddest part is - corporations will suck this country's citizens dry, enslaving them to debt, and then will move on to other "markets". They change "citizenship" at will. "For profit" corporations exist to make profit.

Why no corporate "death penalty" for ethical violations? ie., WR Grace and Libby, Montana. WR Grace mined asbestos, polluting Libby. Grace dove into bankruptcy avoiding private lawsuits and hid its assets. It is still in business, but over 200 Libby citizens are dead and up to 17% of population may be permanently hurt. In 2009, EPA added $130M to the 2000 $120M in Superfund amount to clean up and help people. Who is paying the $130M? Not Grace. The 2011 EPA budget decreased 13%, while Grace, a $2B corporation, had a $71M profit in 3rdQ of 2010.

Interest rates of 30%? This violates most STATES' "usury" laws which prohibit high interest rates - Federal Law doesn't - most lending agencies are federal. THEY create debt by increasing interest rates/service fees. If a federal law capped interst at 15% and prohibited service charges, finance charges, etc, many average US citizens would have more disposable
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bikerdude
On the left side of progressive
10:56 AM on 04/12/2011
Karl Rove is trying to overthrow the Federal Government and the election process for personal gain. This is as much a terrorist attack as throwing a bomb.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
sunshine14
07:01 AM on 04/12/2011
Now why would he be surprised? A corporation is now a person, right?  Pure Greed? An Unrighteous Law? Has man lost his common sense? $$$$$ Billions in campaigns? Why? One day true justice and righteousness will live, but only after the ONE who said. Let your gold and silver save you now. Judges also will be held accountable were told and will also be judged by their own laws, not good will it be for them either. Common sense is lost. Love all
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
04:22 AM on 04/12/2011
How's your wife, Karl? You two living in that little shack on the Texas prairie you listed as your address while you flakked for Dubya?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rblackbird
03:26 AM on 04/12/2011
Since the beginning of campaign finance reform, independent expenditures have always been allowed for individuals. It was the one little hole in the fabric that could be torn wide-open. There was another loophole corporations and unions could exploit, the non-partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote drive which could be manipulated to reach out only to members of one party to get them registered and to the polls.

The big difference now is the Citizens United decision. The Republican Supreme Court gave a human right, i.e., the right of free expression, to corporations-inanimate legal fictions that only exist on paper. Citizens United is proving to be the Dred Scott decision of our time.
10:17 AM on 04/12/2011
A Corporation is a "fictional person" created, usually for profit, which limits liability for its investors and the real persons (and other corporations) who control it. I think Citizen's United is a sort of reverse Dred Scott as it gives citizen's rights to a thing. Our current Supreme Court, over the past twenty years, has made some of the worst decisions ever -

Clinton v. Jones - Allowed a sitting US President to be subject to civil suits regarding acts before he was in office. (I have no problem with this, except that the case should have been stayed while the President is in office. Thus, the President isn't distracted from his duties to the Country and the Country doesnt spend years discussing a blue dress.)

Bush v. Gore - horrid - even the Supreme Court recognized this by making it a case that can never be used as precedent.

Kelp v. City of New London - emminent domain powers can be used by private interests (yes, corporations).

With massive uncontrolled lobbying in Congress. the direct ability of corporations to buy elections, and our media consolidated into huge corporations as well, the average citizen is in trouble. It is no wonder that our midddle class is vanishing. This is an example of unrestricted pure capitalism at work - the corporations slowly eliminate individual rights, take control of all aspects of life and subject individuals to the needs of the corporation. (All the while eliminating smaller corporations and becoming larger and
01:10 AM on 04/12/2011
Remaking or buying ?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
sunshine14
07:23 AM on 04/12/2011
I ask buying or stealing the equality rights of all? defrauding?  Issiah said: Shepherds, DOGS enough is never enough. Now let your gold and silver save you now? Wonder why the innocent are suffering? Greed creates poverty right?
deeblk07
Obama 2012
12:37 AM on 04/12/2011
If Obama gets re-elected which he probably will at this point, in 2016, I believe there will be an Independent president or a woman president in America
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
breakingpoint
War is a Racket - Smedley Butler
12:28 AM on 04/12/2011
Screwed by Corporate America
http://youtu.be/kHRnoSauaUo
photo
nmcginni
No pledges, except the Pledge of Allegiance
08:10 AM on 04/12/2011
Corporation of America should be our moniker.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Onlygodknowswhy
and you are not god
11:26 PM on 04/11/2011
Pretty good return on investment.
800billion tax cut.