HUFFPOST FUNDRACE -- Banks Start A Super PAC, Claim Too Little Influence In Washington

"Congress isn't afraid of bankers ... They don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of office. We are trying to change that perception." That is the reasoning behind the banking industry starting their very own super PAC -- Friends of Traditional Banking. Yes, from the industry that brought you the $800 billion bailout, years of banking deregulation policy, loosened rules around mortgages, and an untransparent Federal Reserve, among countless other things, comes an unlimited money corporate super PAC to influence Congress even more. Commercials banks currently rank as the 13th biggest donor to political campaigns in 2012 based on the contributions of their employees. In 2011 they ranked 18th in terms of lobbying spending. When combined with other pieces of the overall finance sector -- what campaign finance observers call the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector (FIRE) -- there is no match for lobbying or campaign contributions. The FIRE sector, which includes commercial banks, is, far and away, the biggest contributor of campaign funds and the biggest spender on lobbying in Washington over the past 14 years.

The New York Times' Ross Douthat makes the argument in favor of super PACs previously made by Dave Weigel, Richard Cohen, and argued decades before by former Sens. Eugene McCarthy and James Buckley, albeit they were talking about unlimited direct contributions to candidates. Douthat's argument is that super PACs have been a boon to democracy because they have allowed underfunded candidates to garner public attention through large contributions from wealthy donors. He says that without super PACs Mitt Romney would have easily swamped his opposition with his money advantage through limited donations. This, like all other attempts at making this argument, ignores the $40 million gorilla in the room that is Romney's super PAC. The question should not be, "Where would Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum be without super PACs?" Rather it should be, "Where would Romney be without his super PAC?"

Romney's super PAC is continuing its assault on Santorum in the next batch of states voting on April 24. The group has already spent close to $500,000 to attack Santorum, including more than $100,000 to hit Santorum in his home state of Pennsylvania.

This morning President Barack Obama signed into law the STOCK Act, a bill to make the supposed insider trading by lawmakers illegal. During the signing ceremony the president called for further reforms to reduce the role of money in politics. Absent in his remarks was a call to do something regarding Citizens United, something that was, at one point, central to the president's critique of the influence of money in politics.

Karl Rove, a super PAC Godfather, recently argued that asking billionaires and millionaires and cash-flush corporations to disclose their contributions to political organizations was like asking African-Americans in the Jim Crow South to be required to disclose their donations to the NAACP, which was fighting against the state-sanctioned violence perpetrated by the Southern states against American citizens. HuffPost's Dan Froomkin examined how wrong this analogy is, "Disseminating the membership list of the Alabama NAACP in the 1950s would have made it 'equivalent to a death list,' [the NAACP's Hilary] Shelton said. 'Millionaires and billionaires actually investing their money to influence the outcome of an election that effects everyone face no such threat,' he said. 'Somebody might be unhappy that they made a contribution to a candidate they don't like. I don't see them being fired from their jobs; I don't see them being blown up in the middle of the night.'"

Republic Report compiled a list of companies that have contributed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby group that spends tens of millions on election ads.

Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer lays out a way to stop super PACs. Also, eleven state attorneys general have written to Congress to urge the adoption of a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and get money out of politics.

Sen. Pat Toomey is following in the footsteps of conservative firebrand Sen. Jim DeMint and is using his leadership PAC to support a candidate in a Republican primary in the open seat race in Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district. See the ad here.

A liberal super PAC -- Credo Mobile Super PAC -- is targeting Rep. Dan Lungren.

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow announced that she will report her best fundraising quarter ever with $1.5 million during the first three months of 2012. Stabenow was helped by the bone-headed ad run by her likely Republican opponent during the Super Bowl that featured a racist characterization of a Chinese woman talking pidgin English in a rice paddy.

Congratulations to Stephen Colbert for winning a Peabody Award for his super PAC coverage. We enjoyed it so much we wrote a five-part series on Colbert's coverage. You can start at part one here.

AD WATCH

Help us populate our list of campaign videos. Send any notable TV, radio or web ads that you see to Fundrace. Send your submissions to [e-mail].

Committee: Republican National Committee
Candidate Opposed: Barack Obama
Spot: "Same Tired Rhetoric"
Market: Unknown.
Buy: Undisclosed.

Committee: Barack Obama for President
Candidate Opposed: Mitt Romney
Spot: "Mitt Romney vs. Reality"
Market: YouTube.
Buy: None. Just a web video.

Committee: American Bridge 21st Century
Candidate Opposed: Mitt Romney
Spot: "Romney: Ryan Plan Is Simply 'Marvelous'"
Market: YouTube.
Buy: None. Just a web video.

Committee: American Bridge 21st Century
Candidate Opposed: John Brunner
Spot: "Brunner's Millions"
Market: YouTube.
Buy: None. Just a web video.

Committee: Citizens for Prosperity in America Today (Sen. Pat Toomey)
Candidate Supported: Chris Reilly
Spot: "Pat Toomey for Chris Reilly"
Market: PA-04.
Buy: Undisclosed.

Committee: National Republican Congressional Committee
Candidate Opposed: John Barrow
Spot: "Barrow and Obama: The Wrong Pairing"
Market: Unknown.
Buy: Undisclosed.

TRACKING INDEPENDENT SPENDING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE:

These numbers represent spending by independent groups, like super PACs and non-profits, to support or oppose a particular candidate for the presidency in 2012. Fundrace will update this spending daily to help show which candidates are gaining from the proliferation of independent groups in this coming election.

Newt Gingrich (R), $13,014,518 to support, $18,885,161 to oppose.
Rick Santorum (R), $7,548,235 to support, $20,914,763 to oppose. (+$252,578)
Mitt Romney (R), $3,029,324 to support, $6,655,264 to oppose.
Rick Perry (R), $4,167,697 to support, $1,404 to oppose.
Ron Paul (R), $3,748,218 to support, $214,158 to oppose.
Jon Huntsman (R), $2,453,204 to support, $0 to oppose.
Barack Obama (D), $282,298 to support, $979,322 to oppose.
Herman Cain (R), $501,717 to support, $954 to oppose.
Gary Johnson (R), $518 to support, $0 to oppose.

RECENT INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

Campaign for Primary Accountability, $70,000 to oppose Tim Holden for Congress in Pennsylvania's 17th District.
Campaign for Primary Accountability, $600 to oppose Tim Murphy for Congress in Pennsylvania's 18th District.
Restore Our Future, $12,798 to oppose Rick Santorum for President in Rhode Island.
Restore Our Future, $81,855 to oppose Rick Santorum for President in Pennsylvania.
Restore Our Future, $8,384 to oppose Rick Santorum for President in Connecticut.
Restore Our Future, $1,917 to oppose Rick Santorum for President in Delaware.
Restore Our Future, $147,623 to oppose Rick Santorum for President in New York.
Arizona Republican Party, $17,349 to oppose Ronald Barber for Congress in Arizona's 8th District.
National Organization for Marriage, $10,000 to support Anthony Muse for Senate in Maryland.

RECENT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE REGISTRATIONS

NONE.

Send tips, hints, submissions, rumors to HuffPost Fundrace at [e-mail].

Comments

[hetrose]

09:00 AM on 04/05/2012

"I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign of any party ... Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly." - Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt

[ponderingtoo]

08:38 AM on 04/05/2012

As long as they have to disclose who contributed to the super PACs, I don't have a problem with this. If banks starts jamming the t.v. and other media forums with political adds, the public will know which banks with whom not to do business.

[maddog29]

07:43 AM on 04/05/2012

I found the headline intriging. "Major Group Tries To Make Congress 'Afraid'" At first I assumed it would be about the NRA. Then I saw it was the banks. And then I thought, what group doesn't make the Congress afraid. When it comes to Congress, I really think we need to re-evaluate the National Antem. Somehow, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" doesn't seem to work anymore.

[Silverado Lady]

05:06 AM on 04/05/2012

Once this election is over, WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES, to get THESE laws OFF THE BOOKS............
America, WE can NOT GO DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT!!

[Jarrod Putnam]

07:14 AM on 04/05/2012

Indeed. I can only imagine what the history books will read in 100 years (if we haven't obliterated ourselves yet) about today's America. I have no doubt in my mind that the title of the chapter will read something to the extent of, "The Age of "Legal" Corruption in Washington".

[white mende man]

02:16 AM on 04/05/2012

How about a "Concerned American Citizen" Super PAC? created and paid for by the the Middle-Class, no funds will be accepted by any corporations or the wealthy, just home grown Americans, and those that are struggling to make ends meet while working their tails off for a fraction of the pie they create.

[Heroldness]

07:47 AM on 04/05/2012

Where do I sign up?

[Kommonman]

12:14 AM on 04/05/2012

Guess it is time to make the bankers really afraid of the public to stop their rampant attempts to control our govt....Make them afraid..very afraid...afraid of losing your business..with out your monies citizens they have less moeny to project their power

[windy33]

08:33 AM on 04/05/2012

i started. pulled all our stuff out of the banks and into a creadit union. #iss on the banks all their greedy fees.

[Kommonman]

10:15 AM on 04/05/2012

good for you...one account at a time

[KarmaPatrol]

12:06 AM on 04/05/2012

Suckers are born every minute but it's ironic the big banks supporting Romney, and the rest of the Republican crew, are actually promoting a benign type of socialism (i.e. the state directly supporting an industry since it's too big to fail). Can we just get single payer then and call it good?

[maddog29]

07:45 AM on 04/05/2012

I don't think it's a "benign type of socialism". Mingling of Government and Business is closer to Facism than Socialism.

[KarmaPatrol]

02:09 PM on 04/05/2012

I actually think the banks are too big to care. As long as they got their's in the Hamptons, and they can pay the call girls out of 'petty cash', the rest of the country can just supply the groceries. The national security types use the resulting protests to go after demonstrators, most of whom will become free-market small businesspeople.

[Doug MacKenzie]

11:44 PM on 04/04/2012

Problem is, this isn't news. Thomas Jefferson was in high dudgeon over Hamilton and his banker friends taking over the government in the 1790s.

Seems we keep forgetting the Golden Rule: "He who hath the gold, maketh the rule".

[Tea for me]

02:17 AM on 04/05/2012

And....he who has the gold, rules....a variation on the theme...sigh...

Tea..Democrats 2012..local..state..and federal.

[Doug MacKenzie]

11:39 PM on 04/04/2012

Aww, the poor, poor little bankers don't have enough influence in Washington? -I think I just peed myself, laughing.

I don't recall getting an $800 bail-out from their DC friends. That all went to them. What, they want the whole dang pie?

[Tea for me]

02:18 AM on 04/05/2012

Bet it's Rev. Al's blueberry.....

Tea:>)

[gerorem]

10:58 PM on 04/04/2012

Incredible honesty: "Yeah, we are purchasing the government. Got a problem with that? We also have the money to crush you."

[nothingchanges]

08:43 PM on 04/04/2012

I strongly suspect any congressmen (or women) that lose their seats in 2012 will be because they are in BED with the banks, not because they've opposed them.

$174,000 a year salary is PEANUTS compared to the 6.5 MILLION lavished on EACH AND EVERY member of Congress by the lobbyists.

A SANE legislative body would say "enough is enough" this has got to stop.

Either sane, or ethical.

From the looks of it, WE have neither.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off doing away with elections entirely, and throwing darts at a phone book. At least then, on some rare occasions, we'd get HONEST representation.

[gerorem]

11:02 PM on 04/04/2012

They have the money to purchase your mind. No. Not a weird conspiracy. It's called Public Relations---creating a favorable image.

[Rescisco]

08:21 PM on 04/04/2012

Forget not the poor little rich bankers. To abuse one of these children is the greatest of sins. These favored children are to dwell in my penthouse. Abuse them not lest ye' be condemned forever. And suffer not the billionaires who are attacked in my name, for there's shall be the kingdom of gold. - From the Holy Book of Rove -

[windy33]

08:35 AM on 04/05/2012

yup karl rove

[FredSanders]

07:15 PM on 04/04/2012

Put another zero behind the numbers, and you will get what happens in the Presidential election. And then on to 2014......
This has to end NOW.
Who can trust The Media to get upset over this $$$$$windfall??

[FredSanders]

07:12 PM on 04/04/2012

The Plan all along has been to flood America with SuperPropaganda using secret SuperPacs.
How else do you explain the Fact that the GOP no longer cares about public opinion?

[pphhrogg]

07:08 PM on 04/04/2012

This is EXACTLY why super PACs should be illegal.