• New names show up on list of top Obama donation bundlers

    By Michael Beckel
    The Center for Public Integrity

    President Barack Obama prides himself on rejecting donations from registered lobbyists, but a newly released list of campaign fundraisers is peppered with leaders from companies and law firms that lobby the federal government.


    New bundlers, whose names were released this week, include Anthony Welters, executive vice president of UnitedHealth Group, and Qualcomm co-founder and former chairman Irwin Jacobs and his wife Joan.

    Each raised at least $500,000 for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that includes Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and party committees in several battleground states.

    The exact amounts are unknown. The campaign only divulges bundlers’ fundraising activity in broad ranges, with a top category of “more than $500,000.”

    Qualcomm has spent at least $6 million each year since 2007 on federally reportable lobbying efforts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. UnitedHealth spent at least $2.5 million annually in the same period.

    None of these individuals were bundlers for Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. However, Welters’ wife, Beatrice, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

    Bundlers are elite political fundraisers who turn to relatives, friends and business associates to raise large sums and deliver the funds in a “bundle” to the candidate. They are often given perks and special access — both on the campaign trail and once politicians are elected.

    Beatrice Welters was one of about two dozen bundlers who were named ambassadors during the president’s first term. Welters was appointed to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, a post from which she resigned last November.

    There’s nothing illegal about registered lobbyists contributing to a presidential campaign, as long as those donations are reported. But Obama’s campaign went further and voluntarily rejected such contributions. Still, some of his bundlers lead or work for law firms that also provide government lobbying services, although they are not lobbyists themselves.

    Other newly disclosed bundlers include:

    • Andy Sandler, the chairman and executive partner at BuckleySandler, which provides legal counsel and lobbying services for the financial services industry. He bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. Records indicate that his firm’s several recent lobbying clients have included the California-based East West Bank, Virginia-based Genworth Financial and the Electronic Signature and Records Association.
    • Walter White, a London-based partner at the multinational legal powerhouse McGuireWoods, who bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. White is the head of McGuireWoods’ emerging markets transactions practice, according to his official bio. McGuireWoods’ current lobbying clients in the United States include Alpha Natural Resources, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), according to federal records.
    • Jim Black, a Germany-based partner at the law firm White & Case, who bundled between $100,000 and $200,000. Black specializes in equity capital markets and mergers and acquisitions, according to his official company bio. Domestically, White & Case’s several lobbying clients include the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships. 
    • Rick Mayo-Smith, the managing director of Indochina Land, who bundled between $100,000 and $200,000. Indochina Land is the real estate division of Indochina Capital Corp., one of Vietnam's leading financial services groups.

    The White House directed inquiries to Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign and Obama’s new nonprofit advocacy group, Organizing for Action. Hogan did not respond to requests for comment.

    Overall, the Obama campaign reaped financial riches from 769 bundlers, who collectively raised more than $186 million. Twenty-eight of these bundlers moved into higher dollar categories during the fourth quarter of 2012, the new disclosure reveals.

    Another newly listed Obama campaign bundler is Imad Husain, Obama's freshman-year roommate at Occidental College, who is now a banker in Boston. Husain raised between $50,000 and $100,000, according to the campaign.

    Robyn Beck / AFP - Getty Images file

    Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith in 2010.

    Hollywood is also represented among Obama’s newly identified top fundraisers, with super couple Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith collecting more than $500,000. While hardly a professional lobbyist, Pinkett Smith last year pressed lawmakers to take a stand against human trafficking and forced labor, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations with her husband present.

    They join the ranks of previously identified bundlers such as pop star Gwen Stefani and Warner Brothers CEO and Chairman Barry Meyer.

    Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign did not volunteer bundler information, releasing only the names of registered federal lobbyists who bundled, as federal law compelled it to do. Nearly six dozen lobbyists collectively raised more than $17 million for the Republican’s unsuccessful presidential bid, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

    While Obama is safely in the White House for another four years, his chase for cash may not be over.

    These elite moneymen and women could be tapped to fundraise for Obama’s presidential library, and are already being pursued by Organizing for Action, which is promoting the president’s legislative agenda over the next four years.

    Organizing for Action will host a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., next week where a minimum contribution of $50,000 is required to attend, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday.

    Obama’s nonprofit group will, on a quarterly basis, voluntarily disclose the names and donation amounts of contributors giving $250 or more, Organizing for America National Chairman Jim Messina wrote Thursday in an opinion piece posted on CNN.com.

    The group, to date, has not revealed any donors.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent, investigative news outlet.  For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org.

    Read more from The Center for Public Integrity on Open Channel:

    Read more from Open Channel:

  • Tracking the secret money behind an anti-environmental political group

    By Paul Abowd
    The Center for Public Integrity

    Voters haven’t had a clue who is behind American Tradition Partnership — the Colorado group pushing to rewrite Montana’s campaign finance laws — and that’s just the way the secretive nonprofit wants it.

    A 2010 fundraising pitch to its donors promised that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped,” and “the only thing we plan on reporting is our success to contributors like you.”

    “Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates,” reads the document, obtained by The Center for Public Integrity. “but there is no limit to how much you give to this program.”

    As for the state’s ban on corporate money in elections?

    “Corporate contributions are completely legal,” the pitch assures potential funders. “This is one of the rare programs you will find where that’s the case.”

    “You can get some traction with that pitch,” says Dennis Unsworth, who led the state’s investigation of the group in 2010 that unearthed the document. “If you can offer to influence the elections outside the law, that’s a great calling card.”

    For three election cycles, ATP has plastered the state with mailers attacking "radical environmental groups" and moderate Republicans.

    While ATP’s funders are still mostly a mystery, the Center for Public Integrity has identified what records indicate is the secretive organization’s founding donor — an anti-union owner of Colorado’s largest furniture chain — and discovered a long list of affiliations with national tea party groups funded by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.

    This election, ATP has vowed to keep Attorney General Steve Bullock out of the governor’s mansion. In October, voters received a brazen multi-page newspaper-style flier placing the Democratic candidate in a photo lineup with three registered sex offenders.

    But the group hit the national spotlight thanks to three landmark court battles with Bullock and the state of Montana.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision invalidated a federal ban on corporate spending similar to what 24 states had on their books, but Montana held fast to its law. ATP sued to overturn it, losing to Bullock in the state’s high court. But in June, the nonprofit prevailed on appeal to the nation’s highest court.

    ATP is pushing past its Citizens United challenge with two more suits to eliminate Montana’s low contribution limits and disclosure rules, setting up a potential challenge to contribution limits nationwide.

    Tea party ties
    One of ATP’s founders is former Montana Congressman Ron Marlenee, who served from 1977 until the state dropped from two House seats to one in 1992. Marlenee used his D.C. Rolodex to raise money for the fledgling pro-energy group, which registered in Colorado in 2008.

    Marlenee rallied a tea party crowd in Bozeman in 2010, appearing on stage with a half-burned American flag, which he said he wrestled away from a “liberal Marxist” protester.

    ATP has joined tea party lobbying efforts, signing at least two letters to Congress in the last year urging an end to tax credits for renewable resource industries. The letters were signed by Koch-funded groups including Americans for Prosperity and tea party boosters FreedomWorks, Club for Growth and Art Pope’s John Locke Foundation.

    In its 2008 application for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization, ATP listed its “primary donor” as Jacob Jabs, Colorado’s largest furniture retailer and a donor to Republican candidates and causes. Jabs pledged a $300,000 contribution to get ATP on its feet, according to IRS records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

    Jabs, through a spokesman, on Monday said he did not make a donation and has "never heard of" ATP or the group's previous incarnation.

    "He did not commit to the funds indicated by Athena Dalton in the filing so clearly he did not give them funds," wrote Charlie Shaulis, director of communications for American Furniture Warehouse, Jabs' company, in an email to I-News Network in Colorado.

    Dalton wrote a letter to the IRS asking the agency to speed up the process for awarding it nonprofit status. The letter states that the approval was needed quickly, otherwise Jabs would not make a contribution. The agency gave it the thumbs up four days later.

    The amount of the gift would be double Jabs’ total federal campaign contributions since 1997, which have gone exclusively to Republican candidates and party organizations, according to FEC records. 

    Jabs also poured money into a failed “right to work” ballot initiative in Colorado, becoming a television spokesman for the 2008 anti-union effort.

    ATP shares resources and a D.C. mailing address with an affiliated 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit called the American Tradition Institute, which works in tandem with a network of Koch-funded think tanks  to oppose wind energy and dispute the reality of climate change. It has launched lawsuits against state mandates for renewable energy usage and targeted climate scientists in academia.

    The libertarian Koch brothers, Charles and David, have become better known in recent years with the rise of the tea party. They are principal owners of Koch Industries Inc., the second-largest privately owned company in the U.S., with major investments in the energy industry. 

    ATI has accepted donations from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a free-market think tank underwritten by Exxon Mobil and Koch foundation money, according to a report by the Institute for Southern Studies.

    Its director of litigation Chris Horner is also a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank that has taken a half-million dollars from Koch foundations since 1998, according to the report.

    ‘We won’t be shut up, or shut down’
    In 2008, American Tradition Partnership flooded the state with mailers attacking ten state legislators, but reported only $12,000 in spending for the entire election.

    An investigation by the state’s Commission on Political Practices concluded that the group had broken state law requiring outside spending groups to register as political action committees and disclose all donors and spending.

    Commissioner Unsworth concluded in October 2010 that ATP had registered a “sham organization” called the Coalition for Energy and Environment and vastly under-reported its activity. The PAC’s reported spending, said the state, would have barely covered the cost of postage for the raft of glossy, full-color mailers ATP sent out.

    ATP filed forms with the IRS the same year, reporting more than $600,000 in spending.

    ATP maintains that its spending on mailers, most targeting moderate Republicans running for state legislative seats, is “educational” and therefore falls outside the state’s definition of “express advocacy” that would require it to disclose its funders and its spending on the mailers.

    ATP did not face penalties and did not disband. Instead, it changed its name from Western Tradition Partnership and sued to strike down Montana’s disclosure laws.

    The case is set for trial in March 2013.

    “We won’t be shut up or shut down,” ATP said in a press release in June.

    ATP’s years-long court battles have pushed the group into the public spotlight, threatening the secrecy of its donors. The group has vigorously resisted discovery proceedings in court, missing several deadlines to produce evidence requested by the state.

    Lawyers in Bullock’s office filed a motion to compel ATP to present evidence, including bank records, or drop their lawsuit. It has not complied. According to a court filing, ATP’s lawyer Jim Brown emailed the state’s lawyers in late August, explaining, “I have a difficult client."

    Nonetheless, the state has won access to bank records for the organization. If a judge makes them public, they could offer voters a glimpse at the group’s funders.

    ‘I was the screen’
    The group rarely communicates with the press and it hires unknowing lawyers to sign campaign finance reports and its 2008 nonprofit incorporation documents in Colorado.

    Scott Shires has been sued and fined for his election activities, but the Colorado political consultant says his reputation really took a hit after he signed ATP’s forms. When Montana released the results of its 2010 investigation, Shires’ name began showing up in the press, and he says he cut ties to the organization.

    “The operatives writing these stupid ads and mailings don’t want to be identified,” said Shires. “I was the screen that allowed them to hide — plausible deniability is something a lot of these groups are interested in.”

    Shires listed himself as “President” of ATP when he signed the group’s request for exempt status with the IRS in 2008.

    He is widely known for registering hundreds of political committees in Colorado, mostly Republican groups. The work involves some risk. He pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns for a client in 2008, a misdemeanor charge. He was also caught up in a scandal that linked former U.S. Rep. and 2008 Senate candidate Bob Schaffer with the beneficiary of a questionable congressional earmark.

    As of May 2012, an IRS filing still listed Shires as the group’s president, and he remains one of the few names publicly associated with the group.

    ATP Executive Director Donald Ferguson did not return numerous calls for comment.

    ‘Not really sure who is in charge’
    The left-leaning Montana Conservation Voters claims ATP was unfazed by the 2010 investigation and is “right back to doing the same thing,” according to the group’s board member Ben Graybill, who filed the original complaint.

    This year, ATP has registered a PAC in the state. It sent mailers prior to the June primary election, but has reported zero spending to the state.

    Its filings are signed by Montana attorney Chris Gallus, who was “surprised” to receive a call from the Center regarding ATP. He claims no leadership role in the organization, and said he’s “not really sure who is in charge.”

    Gallus said he has not been contacted by ATP since being hired to sign their PAC reports, and does not anticipate filing any spending reports on their behalf. “Until that changes, my involvement is the same as the date I signed their forms.”

    The organization sent out a questionnaire to candidates in early October, asking about their stance on land development and environmental regulations in resource-rich Montana.

    “Will you oppose legislation which would categorically limit development of any specific energy resource?” reads one. “Will you oppose legislation that would rescind, reduce or shorten the tax holiday on oil & gas wells?” reads another.

    Candidates who don’t respond, or don’t respond with answers favorable to ATP’s interests, are often targeted by a direct mail campaign similar to those launched at Bullock.

    Its adversary, the Montana conservation group, endorses candidates for the state legislature who align with its mission to “protect clean water, public health, and our incredible outdoor heritage.” Its mid-October mailers praise Bullock for leading “the fight against corporate control of our elections.”

    Unlike ATP, the group reports its direct and independent spending to the state and lists its donors.

    “They’re scofflaws,” said Theresa Keaveny, executive director of the Montana conservation group.

    Keaveny says ATP is not only in violation of Montana law, but also IRS rules for 501c(4) groups, which dictate ATP must not spend a majority of its funds on political activity.

    According to its 2008 application for exempt status, obtained by the Center, ATP promised not to “spend any money attempting to influence” elections. It also promised not to “directly or indirectly participate or intervene on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.”

    It would, however spend “70 percent” of its time and resources to “educate citizens” about “land and resource development issues.”

    Jabs did not return a request to comment for this story.

    Governor’s race a toss up

    Bullock, a Democrat, is running against Republican Rick Hill. It’s expected to be a close race despite Montana’s majority-Republican voting population.

    “We want citizens deciding elections, not corporations,” said Bullock in an October debate during which he touted his record as a campaign finance crusader.

    While outside spending groups, including the Republican and Democratic governors associations, have swarmed the state with ads, the two candidates have had to abide by Montana’s low contribution limits — for most of the campaign.

    In October, ATP made national news when a federal judge agreed with the organization and its high-profile campaign finance lawyer, James Bopp, and struck down contribution limits on individuals, PACs, and parties — including the $630 cap on individual giving to Bullock and Hill.

    "The political establishment can no longer tell citizens to shut up because they've reached their speech limit," said ATP Montana Director Doug Lair in a press release.

    Montana joined the ranks of 12 other states with no limits on contributions to candidates, but only temporarily. A week later, a federal appeals court stayed the lower court decision pending a full appeal, putting the state’s contribution limits back in force.

    Bullock’s opponent took advantage of the six-day free-for-all between the ruling and the stay, accepting a $500,000 contribution from the state’s Republican Party. The gift dwarfed Montana’s $22,600 limit on party giving to candidates.

    ‘Who’s saying these crazy things’
    A month before the vote, Montana residents woke up to a fake newspaper on their doorstep called “The Montana Statesman.”

    The publication calls itself “the largest and most trusted news source” but is actually a series of ATP-funded attacks on Bullock. It leads with a giant headline that reads “Bullock Admits Failure.”

    The “news” story claims that the attorney general has let “1 in 4 sex offenders go unregistered.” It includes four photos: three registered sex offenders and Bullock.

    The group can continue to raise money on the promise that “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible,” as its 2010 briefing to donors reads. “You can just sit back on election night and see what a difference you’ve made.”

    Unsworth says his 2010 investigation did not stop ATP, and outside spending that has already flooded the state, is sure to intensify, particularly in light of the Citizens United decision. He calls the advertising a “mess of trash that lays at the feet of the public,” paid for by “funny money with no legal constraints.”

    “We don’t know who’s saying these crazy things,” he added, “so the public has to suffer and our political system suffers as a result.”

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source.

    Update (Oct . 22, 7:00 p.m. ET): This story was updated to reflect that Jabs, through a spokesman, denied making a contribution to ATP.

    More from Open Channel:

  • Child sex abuse survivor on release of Boy Scout files: This 'empowers us'
  • US nonprofit 'names and shames' businesses to put bite into Iran sanctions
  • Man pleads guilty in plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to US
  • Help 'Free the Files' on election TV ad spending
  • Lobbyists rake in $14 million for Romney, new public records show
  • Mystery kidney disease decimates Central American sugarcane workers
  • Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. investigated for possible financial improprieties
  • Why did environmental nonprofit donate to conservative pro-coal group?
  • Doping agency paints Armstrong as leader of long-running cheating scheme

    • Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

     



  • Lobbyists rake in $14 million for Romney, new public records show

    By Michael Beckel
    Center for Public Integrity

    As Republican Mitt Romney works to unify the party faithful behind him, the number of lobbyists raising money to help him secure the White House has soared.

    More than five-dozen lobbyist-bundlers have raised at least $14 million for Romney’s election efforts, according to reports submitted Monday. That includes 42 who raised nearly $9 million during the third quarter of 2012.

    The third quarter marked the first period of pro-Romney fundraising activity for two-dozen lobbyists, according a review of Federal Election Commission documents by the Center for Public Integrity.

    Among them, former Republican Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York, who raised $238,200; John Castellani, president and CEO of pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA, who raised $61,000; Brian P. Miller of oil and gas giant BP America, who raised $36,550; and Joseph Seidel of Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second-largest bank.

    Two lobbyists each collected more than $1 million for the election efforts of the former Massachusetts governor from July through September, records show. Bill Graves, the president and CEO of the American Trucking Association, and attorney David Beightol of D.C.-based firm Dutko Grayling both raised about $1.1 million.

    To date, Graves has now raised more than $1.6 million — more than any of the other 62 lobbyists whose names have been disclosed in federal filings.

    Romney, unlike President Barack Obama, has not voluntarily released a list of bundlers — elite political fundraisers who turn to relatives, friends and business associates to raise large sums and then deliver the funds in a “bundle” to the candidate. They are often given perks and special access — both on the campaign trail and once politicians are elected.

    But thanks to a 2007 law passed in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, all federal candidates are required to report information about the lobbyists who bundle money for their campaigns.

    Obama, who, as president, has taken a tough stance against lobbyists in his rhetoric and policies, has not taken money from lobbyist-bundlers, according to records. He has voluntarily disclosed the names of everyone who has raised at least $50,000 for his re-election efforts.

    According to his campaign’s most recent disclosure in July, nearly 650 bundlers had collected more than $143 million for Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The president is expected to release an updated list with his third-quarter bundlers later this week.

    All of the GOP presidential nominee’s lobbyist-fundraising muscle has aided not only the Romney campaign but also the “Romney Victory Committee” — a joint fundraising organization that funnels cash to his campaign, the Republican National Committee and several other party entities.

    Individuals can donate up to $75,800 to the Romney Victory Fund. The first $5,000 is directed to the Romney campaign while the next $30,800 goes to the RNC. The remaining funds are split between other participating party committees.

    Romney has rejected calls from good-government groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics, the Sunlight Foundation, the League of Women Voters and the Campaign Legal Center to release additional information about his top fundraisers, unlike former GOP presidential candidates George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

    Romney’s fundraising network extends well beyond those lobbyists named in FEC filings. Earlier this year, USA Today released a list of more than 1,000 individuals that the newspaper identified as bundlers for Romney.

    Even as Romney has denied requests for increased transparency, he plans to list the names of all bundlers who raise at least $200,000 in a commemorative book after Election Day. Top supporters are also being offered special access to weekly strategy sessions, VIP retreats and signature apparel, according to Politico.

    Those who raise at least $200,000 between the primary and general election will be honored at the “Stars” level, according to documents obtained by Politico, while those who bundle at least $400,000 enjoy “Stripes” level status.

    Some of Romney’s lobbyist-bundlers have blown past these thresholds.

    In addition to Graves and Beightol, Dirk Van Dongen, the president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, and Patrick J. Durkin, Sr., of Barclays have each bundled more than $1 million. Van Dongen has raised roughly $1.2 million, including nearly $961,000 during the third quarter, and Durkin has collected about $1.1 million.

    Sixteen other lobbyists have raised at least $200,000 for Romney, according to the Center analysis.

    Abramoff, once a top Washington lobbyist, pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges in 2006 and served 43 months before being released in late 2010. The scandal prompted Congress to pass a package of new ethics rules.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet. See more of its stories on this topic.

    More from Open Channel:

     

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

     


  • Big donors give far and wide, influencing out-of-state races and issues

    Investigative News Network
    The focus on billionaires’ and corporations’ contributions to Super PACs this year has highlighted the impact of the rich and powerful on the presidential campaigns.


    Credits

    This article was written by Evelyn Larrubia, of the Investigative News Network, based on reporting and data analysis by Dan Auble, Bob Biersack, Sheila Krumholz and Doug Weber, Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.; Tyler Evilsizer and Denise Roth Barber, National Institute on Money in State Politics, in Montana; Sandra Fish, I-News Network in Colorado; Evelyn Larrubia, Investigative News Network; Hayley Bruce, Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism; Scott Van Voorhis, New England Center for Investigative Reporting, in Massachusetts; Bill Heltzel, Public Source, in Pennsylvania; Jason Rosenbaum, St. Louis Beacon, in Missouri; and Nat Rudarakanchana and Alicia Freese, Vermont Digger.

    But an analysis by the Investigative News Network of contributions by wealthy individuals in seven states shows that their giving is greater than any one cause or race reveals -- with millions flowing into state, federal and even local campaigns, parties and committees far and wide.

    Take Colorado software entrepreneur and gay rights activist Tim Gill. He has given $450,000 to Colorado independent expenditure committees so far this political cycle, which began in 2011. He’s also given generously out of state—$100,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party Executive Committee and $25,000 to the Iowa Democratic Party—and smaller amounts to 26 candidates and causes in that time, from President Barack Obama to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, to candidates running for the Colorado state house.

    All told, Gill, who did not respond to a request for comment, has doled out nearly $3.7 million to state and federal causes and campaigns in the past five years, making him the largest political donor from Colorado who wasn’t funding his own campaign.

    Gill is no exception.

     

    Wealthy Iowans put most of their money into causes at home, but they have also donated to candidates, parties and causes in New Jersey and Washington state this election cycle. Likewise, donors from Missouri have given to political parties and campaigns in Tennessee and Indiana. Money from Vermont has flowed into Wisconsin, from Colorado into Pennsylvania, from Massachusetts to Washington State and from California into Georgia. Donors in all seven states examined for this report gave to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s successful campaign to beat a recall election this summer.

    The findings illustrate what Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute in Washington, DC has been seeing in his own research.

    “Politics is becoming increasingly national,” said Malbin, the author of several books and a professor at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany, SUNY in New York. “Means of communication, fundraising and also campaigning are becoming national -- and it’s affecting state and even local races.” 

    This is different from the century-plus-old participation by national corporations and labor unions in state politics, he said.

    “There are a much broader variety of actors, often ideologically motivated, who are involved now. And they can bring resources to bear that can overwhelm local resources,” he said. “It does create questions about representation that could be troubling.”

    There is no single government database that captures all of the contributions by any prolific donor. They are recorded in piles of reports to federal and state elections officials by the campaigns and causes that have received the money.

    To get this rare, comprehensive look at the top donors in seven states, the Center for Responsive Politics, which collects and analyzes contributions on the federal level, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which gathers and studies contributions in state races, merged their data on the top donors. The organizations, both members of INN, looked at donations to and from California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Vermont. The data do not include so-called “dark money” contributions to 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits, which are exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 

    Supplemented with reporting by INN-member newsrooms across the country, the analysis showed that looking at state and federal donations together gives a more complete picture of the most generous political contributors in each state--and where their money is going. In some cases, to look at only one would grossly misrepresent who the top donors even are.

    The list of top donors to state campaigns and causes in Massachusetts and Vermont would be different from the list of top donors in those states to federal candidates, parties and causes – which is where they sent most of their political contributions.

    In Colorado, Iowa and Missouri, the situation is reversed. The biggest contributors donated the largest sums to state candidates and issues.

    Of California’s top 10 donors in 2011 and so far in 2012, four contributors gave overwhelmingly to state causes and campaigns while the other six have given most heavily on the federal level. Only by merging both sets of records does the full picture of the state’s most active political contributors emerge.

    San Francisco hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer, for instance, gave nearly $22 million this year to support a ballot initiative he’s spearheading that would force corporations with operations out of state to pay more California taxes. Another top California donor, DreamWorks founder and CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg has given relatively little to California campaigns and causes this cycle--around $10,000—but has donated $2 million to the top Super PAC supporting Obama, Priorities USA Action.

    Some wealthy individuals give so broadly that it’s only by looking at contributions across state and federal campaigns that the full breadth of their political reach is revealed.

    Retired ING Insurance Executive Fred Hubbell has donated just shy of $114,300 in this election cycle -- divided about evenly between state and federal causes and campaigns. He gave much of it in $1,000-or-smaller contributions to individual Democratic candidates in his home state of Iowa.

    The analysis also illustrated how fluidly money moves across states.

    In the 2012 election cycle, New York billionaires George Soros and Michael Bloomberg and Chicago billionaire Nick Pritzker, whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, were among the single biggest donors to three ballot initiatives in California in 2012, with donations of about $500,000 each. (Disclosure: Soros’ Open Society Institute is among the nonprofit Investigative News Network’s funders.)

    The trio donated, respectively, to the Committee for Three Strikes Reform, which seeks to limit the use of life sentences to violent third strike offenses; Californians for a Cure, which sought to increase cigarette taxes to fund cancer research (the proposition was narrowly defeated this summer); and Taxpayers for Public Safety, which is trying to repeal California’s Death Penalty.

    “Criminal justice is an issue that George Soros had been concerned about for many years,” said his spokesman Michael Vachon. “And what happens in California is relevant. It’s a bellwether state. California immigration policy, prison reform, all kinds of things that happen in California tend to have a ripple effect through the country.” 

    Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna said public health initiatives are a key issue for the mayor of New York and “he has always been willing to back up his support with contributions.”

    Pritzker said through a spokesperson that he feels it’s “high time” California gets rid of its death penalty as Illinois has.

    “Economic and moral reasons compel the conclusion that life without possibility of parole is far superior to the death penalty,” he said. “The entire country should be interested in this referendum in the largest state in the country.”

    While some would cringe at wealthy individuals influencing laws in states where they don’t live, Candice Nelson, chair of the Department of Government at American University and an expert on campaign finance, said there’s another argument.

    “If you believe in a cause, why should you only be able to give to a cause in your state?” she asked.

    She said a deep look at individuals’ donations gives an indication not only of the causes that matter to them, but also of their social and political networks and what seats are in play that are seen as having national importance.


    Behind the story:

    The Center for Responsive Politics analyzed donations to candidates, parties, PACs, super PACs, and 527 organizations in each of the selected states based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. The National Institute on Money in State Politics analyzed donations to candidates, parties and ballot measure committees in the same states based on data reported to state disclosure agencies.

    The organizations merged their data to come up with the major campaign finance players in California, Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

    Individual federal donors do not include contributions from family members and exclude contributions from candidates to themselves.

    Reporters supplemented the data with other contributions, such as those to state PACs, in some instances.

    Because of inconsistent disclosure reporting periods, the timeliness of the data varies. Federal data is current as of July 2012. State data is current as of: California, June 30, 2012; Colorado, Sept. 12, 2012; Iowa, July 14, 2012; Massachusetts, Aug 31, 2012; Missouri, Sept 1, 2012; Pennsylvania, May 14, 2012; Vermont, Sept 15, 2012.

    “It gets to the question of the network, of who’s asking who for money,” Nelson said. 

    Bill Stetson, who together with his wife and daughter is the heaviest donor from Vermont this political cycle, said his personal friendships often motivate his donations. 

    “If you have the money to give, just as is the case with giving to charities and nonprofits, you must give to candidates you believe in -- or who’s going to support those candidates? What kind of people will be in Washington and Montpelier?” asked Stetson, an environmental policy consultant. He said he donates principally to environmental causes and candidates who support them, regardless of party or state lines.

    The Stetson family has donated over $200,000 to the national Democratic party and Democratic party committees in a long list of states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and New Hampshire. Jane is the finance chair for the DNC and a significant Obama bundler.

    The INN analysis also showed the impact of state limits.

    Vermont caps individuals’ donations to a maximum of $2,000 to state candidates and Political Action Committees. So far this year, the Stetsons have given only $9,000 to state campaigns and causes, even though they are close to prominent state politicians like former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

    By comparison, Missouri’s top donor, St. Louis financier Rex Sinquefield, has spent nearly $7 million in political contributions already this election cycle, much of it to fund committees that seek to eliminate Missouri’s state income tax and phase out the state control of the St. Louis Police Department through ballot measures. Missouri is one of four states with no campaign contribution limits.

    A multi-millionaire who won’t divulge his net worth, he has given a total of $21.5 million since 2008.

    But state limits aren’t the only determining factor. 

    Iowa doesn’t limit state contributions either and the biggest donor there so far this campaign cycle, real estate businessman Bill Knapp II, gave a comparatively small $199,850.

    One other factor could be at play: Unlike Missouri, Iowa does not have an initiative process for ballot measures. 

    Iowa still has its share of contentious issues. It is a battleground state for the presidential election and a state Supreme Court retention vote has drawn interest -- one of the justices facing voters backed a 2009 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, angering conservatives.

    As a result, it has been getting donations from out-of-state donors, large and small.

    Chicago millionaire and Democratic supporter Fred Eychaner donated $25,000 to the campaign of Iowa Senate candidate Michael Gronstal in September 2011, making him the campaign’s largest single contributor. Florida businessman Gary Chartrand gave $50,000 to the Iowa Republican Party in November. It also received $15,000 from Susan and Howard Groff, who own a construction equipment rental company in California called Northwest Excavating. State candidates and parties in Iowa have also received donations from residents of New York, Texas, Michigan, and a number of other states.

    According to the party, they’re giving of their own initiative.

    "Some Republicans, in say, California, will donate to help the Republican Party [in Iowa] because they feel it will go further than if they donate where they live in a more Democratic state,” said Megan Stiles, spokesperson for the Iowa Republican Party. “But in terms of seeking out-of-state donations, we haven't really been doing that."

     

  • Political ad records from TV stations are now online, but still aren't searchable

    By Justin Elliott
    ProPublica

    After a bruising months-long fight between media corporations and the Federal Communications Commission, a government website came online Thursday that will feature political ad data from television stations around the country.

    This means that detailed files about political advertising — which show who is buying political ads, how much they are paying, and when the ads are running, among other information — will finally be available online. In the past, those interested in the files, which are by law public, had to travel to stations to get physical copies.

    Though the new system is far from perfect, it will likely give the public and journalists a new window into how an expected few billion dollars are spent on political ads on local television this election cycle.

    Follow Open Channel from NBC News on Twitter and Facebook.

    For now, only the affiliates of the top four broadcast networks in the top 50 markets will have to upload their political files to the FCC site. (The Sunlight Foundation has a map of the missing markets here.) All broadcasters will have to start complying in July 2014.  And the rule is not retroactive for political ad data — so the site will only have information on political ad buys going forward.

    The FCC requires broadcasters to upload information on political ad purchases “as soon as possible, which the Commission has determined is immediately absent extraordinary circumstances.”

    So what can we find on the new site? So far, not very much. Few broadcasters have uploaded files. But there are a few examples of what we’ll get more of in the coming weeks.

    Here, for example, are the files posted by WCPO, the ABC affiliate in Cincinatti. If you navigate to the “Federal” folder, then the “President” folder, then the “Obama” folder, you will find this contract (.pdf) for an ad buy the campaign made this week.

    You can see that GMMB Inc, a Democratic ad firm in Washington that works with the Obama campaign, paid a total of $67,110 for three days worth of ads on the station this week. The ads were targeting the 35+ demographic and ran on shows including Jeopardy and the Jimmy Kimmel Show. The filing does not make clear which specific ad was run.

    The new system has a few serious limitations.

    It is difficult to get an overall picture of spending by a single campaign, super PAC, or other outside group. You can only search by station name, network affiliation, or channel number, not by, say, typing in the name of the political campaign or outside group that bought an ad. I asked the FCC about this and an agency official who declined to be named said that “plans are to have a search function shortly but the scope is yet undetermined.”

    Then there’s the fact that, as we’ve previously noted, the FCC declined to require broadcasters to upload files in a single format. That means that it won’t be easy to aggregate data and analyze it in volume. That’s in contrast, for example, to federal election filings, which are uploaded in a single, so-called “machine-readable” format that can be analyzed with computers.

    The head of the FCC’s media bureau has said that putting the files in a single format is a “long-term goal.”

    The new FCC website is also still under construction. The “Help” section, for example, is blank. And a page for developers also appears incomplete.

    Another part of the public file that is worth keeping an eye on requires broadcasters to post “a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors” of any entity that pays for ads or programming on a “political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance.” This could come in handy when, as often happens around Election Day, opaque outside groups are created and start buying ads.

    It’s also worth noting that there’s a range of other non-political information from broadcasters’ public file that will be going online, including: information on who owns a station; an Equal Employment Opportunity file describing the racial makeup of a station’s employees; a map showing where a station’s signal reaches;  descriptions of children’s programming on the station; and a range of other information.

    ProPublica launched a project earlier this year, Free the Files, to get readers to go to TV stations and send in political files to be posted on our site. Stay tuned for more coverage of the FCC and political ad spending.

  • FEC makes it easier to follow the campaign money

    By M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

    The Federal Election Commission has begun making campaign finance reports more readily available, immediately making the lives of political reporters and data junkies a thousand times easier.

    M. Alex Johnson M. Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

    With little fanfare, the FEC has started making individual filings publicly available as a Real Simple Syndication feed, instantaneously available in any RSS system, such as Google Reader. The Sunlight Foundation, a Washington nonprofit that advocates for open government, reported the development last week.

    Technically speaking, FEC databases have long been public, but getting them has been a mind-numbing process. On the 20th of each month, the commission posts a large text file — sometimes approaching half a gigabyte — for every campaign finance filing over the previous month. Organizations that wanted to manipulate the data had to use special database tools to extract it, and it then had to be read by a real person for sorting into appropriate reporting categories.

    Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.

    Some of those hurdles remain — the reports are still in the .FEC file format and are still most easily accessed using the commission's downloadable command-line tool. But at least they now come to you directly and are easily browsable.

    Super PACS: Follow the money — if you can

    The Sunlight Foundation — which pushed for an RSS feed at an FEC meeting this year — called the development "a modest step" but one that was important "because it acknowledges that time-sensitive data needs to be presented in a convenient machine readable format."

    If you want to try it for yourself, you can access the new RSS here.

  • Super PACS: Follow the money - if you can

    By Reuters

    December 2011 was a busy month for supporters of presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. The former speaker of the House had surged ahead of his Republican rivals in several polls. Suddenly he was being barraged by negative TV ads produced by Restore Our Future, a Super PAC for rival candidate Mitt Romney.

    Gingrich did not have the money to retaliate. Individual donations in federal elections are restricted to $2,500. He needed his own Super PAC that could receive unlimited contributions.

    Ever since the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in the Citizens United case paved the way for Super PACS, they have been a legitimate new tactic for political campaigns. As far as can be determined, Winning Our Future (WOF), the pro-Gingrich political action committee, did not do anything impermissible under campaign finance laws. But a look at its regular reports to the Federal Election Commission reveals a degree of legerdemain that appears commonplace in FEC records and makes it difficult for the public to know who ends up with the record amounts of money flowing into the political system today.

    "Opaque transactions in politics undermine public confidence in the process," said Meredith McGeehee, owner of McGehee Strategies, which works on public interest advocacy, and policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.

    Flying under the radar

    Because Super PACs are required to operate independently of the candidates they support, three longtime Gingrich allies scrambled to assemble one on his behalf. Winning Our Future filed papers with the Federal Election Commission on December 13, 2011. Texas billionaire Harold Simmons seeded it with $500,000 and gave twice more, for a total of $1.1 million. The family of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $21.5 million. By the end of March 2012, WOF had raised an additional $1.2 million, for a war chest of $23.8 million.

    Who received that money is difficult to discern.

    Within six weeks of the Super PAC's launch, three new companies were set up to serve as vendors for WOF. (A fourth had been formed earlier in 2011, after Gingrich declared his candidacy in May, by an individual behind one of the three later outfits.) These four new companies received 84 percent of WOF's total disbursements, according to FEC records.

    Some political consultants said they set up separate companies for different races for accounting purposes or to create a kind of firewall between their political work and their commercial activities. Others said the maneuver can be used to conceal work being done simultaneously for rival camps. And it can have tactical advantages.

    "A new entity means they can fly under the radar for a few minutes," said one source. "Theoretically, it slows down the opposition research on their buying style." Where a candidate chooses to advertise says a lot about the issues and voters he or she is targeting.

    The key word is "buying." The biggest checks written by any campaign or Super PAC go to the companies that buy ads on TV, radio and the Internet. Under long-standing industry practice, the broadcaster gives the buyer a 15 percent discount that the buyer has kept as a commission. These days, the percentage kept by political media buyers is likely to be 5 percent or less, according to various industry insiders. The rest of the discount from the broadcasters may be apportioned any way the leaders of the PAC or campaign wish.

    PACs are required to report expenditures, including recipient and amount. Bulk checks to media buyers routinely run into the millions of dollars without disclosing subcontracts and other expenses. Side agreements over splitting of the discounts from the broadcasters are not subject to FEC disclosure.

    "Our system is based on the idea that (Super PACs) can basically spend money however they see fit, and if your donors think the committee is not spending it wisely, then they can decide not to give further," said FEC Commissioner Cynthia Bauerly.

    Compensation mystery

    Rick Tyler is a seasoned political operative who began advising Winning Our Future in December. He described in the harshest terms what he says is the common industry practice of PAC staff secretly divvying up portions of the discount: "Kickbacks … come back either to the campaign or the media vendor, in many cases the campaign manager. So you'll get a congressional campaign manager who on the surface you think is making $50,000-$60,000. The fact is he could be making hundreds of thousands of dollars - you have no idea because he's being paid separate from what you're seeing."

    Total broadcast and cable spending during the 2012 race is projected to be $3 billion. That means as much as $450 million could be divvied up among political consultants and campaign or PAC staff according to negotiated fee agreements and informal side deals.

    Tyler disparaged this opaque system of fee sharing as a hallmark of big-name political consultants. He didn't name any specifically, but he says WOF avoided their help. Yet it's clear that some of the pro-Gingrich Super PAC's vendors engaged in some opacity.

    WOF's TV ad buys were handled by Media Advantage, which was incorporated in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on December 6, 2011 - a week before WOF submitted its organizing statement to the FEC. The owner was listed as Laura Lancaster, of Baton Rouge, who did not return phone calls from Reuters.

    The real buyer, according to Tyler, was Ken Kurson, a partner and executive vice president of Jamestown Associates in Princeton, New Jersey. Neither Kurson nor Jamestown CEO Larry Weitzner would comment for this story.

    Tyler said that when WOF first approached Kurson, Jamestown said it had a conflict: It was already handling TV ads for the pro-Rick Perry Super PAC Make Us Great Again.

    While media buyers have no obligation to avoid such conflicts the way law firms or investment banks do, they prefer not to advertise them. Commercial clients may not want to be linked to certain politicians, and political clients may worry about leaks inside the organization.

    Political vendors sometimes work for rival campaigns because there are more candidates than companies that can execute a good national media-buying strategy, according to industry experts. To avoid disclosing their identity in FEC records and to avoid leaks within the organization, one prominent media consultant explained, they spin off a separate corporation. How separate is another matter.

    Jamestown Associates "just told Ken it would be fine to set up his own company," Tyler said in explaining why Kurson established Media Advantage in December.

    Kurson was behind another mysterious WOF vendor, according to Tyler. Empire Creative is shown in FEC reports as receiving $195,875 to produce ads. This company was incorporated in Delaware on October 31, 2011, by National Registered Agents Inc. An official with National Registered Agents said the company has an agreement with its customers to keep their identities confidential. The incorporation documents reveal nothing beyond a post office box number in New York City.

    Spotty records

    The name of Sam Hassell does not appear on any FEC reports from Winning Our Future, but Reuters discovered that he received the largest chunk of money from the Super PAC. Payments totaling more than $8.1 million were made to his two companies. He created Marketel Media Inc five months before WOF was formed and Intelimarc Inc just nine days before.

    Although Hassell is the sole stakeholder in Intelimarc, his name is not on its incorporation documents. Two local attorneys are cited instead. Because December was so hectic, said Hassell, he had his brother's law firm do the work. WOF paid Intelimarc $1.2 million for Internet and email advertising, according to FEC records.

    In recent years, Hassell sold radio ads for Salem Radio Network, a national network of stations that feature Christian music and conservative talk show hosts. He left in May 2011 to become chief executive officer of one of its clients, the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), a for-profit company that offers members discounts on various goods and services. When Hassell incorporated Marketel in July, AMAC was its only client. WOF is now a second.

    WOF bought $1.9 million in radio air time, according to Smart Media Group, a political advertising company in Alexandria, Virginia, that monitors political ads on TV, radio and cable outlets. According to its reports to the FEC, WOF paid Marketel at least $2.9 million solely for radio advertising.

    That leaves $1 million - a third of the disbursements - that didn't show up as buys.

    Hassell couldn't explain the gap or say how much his companies profited. He did say they took the "industry standard" of something less than 15 percent in commissions for the placing of radio ads.

    Explanations for the gap could include Smart Media's missing some air-time purchases by Winning Our Future. Some of the expenditures listed in the Super PAC's reports to the FEC might have included money spent on something else, such as producing the ads. (Winning Our Future reported separate outlays for ad production.)

    From the FEC records alone, however, it's hard to know where much of the $8.1 million paid to Hassell's two new companies ended up.

    "You have to have people you can trust"

    Rebecca Burkett came to Winning Our Future from American Solutions, a nonprofit political group run by Gingrich that largely closed down when he became a candidate. The Super PAC paid her $249,505 between December and March for fundraising and management consulting. In all, Winning Our Future paid out $217,834 for fundraising, although only $1.2 million was raised beyond amounts contributed by Simmons and the Adelson family.

    A vendor listed as VHH Consulting LLC turned out to belong to the wife of Lee Habeeb, who helped build up the roster of popular conservative radio hosts at Salem Radio and has had a long association with Gingrich. He also helped WOF get organized in December, including providing advice about how to handle the radio and Internet advertising eventually contracted to Hassell's two companies. Habeeb and his wife, Valerie, have consulting companies in their hometown of Oxford, Mississippi - LMH Consulting LLC for him, VHH for her. VHH received $59,235 from Winning Our Future for consulting "on strategy and branding and the ways to go about putting the ads together," she said.

    Why so many longtime Gingrich associates got business from Winning Our Future is no mystery, she said: "You have to have people that you trust. You need to know who you're dealing with."

    Scams waiting to happen

    Meredith McGeehee points to another tie that binds: "Any politician has a retinue of people that over time they build up, and if you're one of those consultants, one of those who provides services to those candidates, it's a great business. You can make a good living growing all the different services to the candidate or to the Super PAC."

    But the complex web of shell companies effectively thwarts the transparency the Supreme Court took for granted in Citizens United, and scams or self-dealing would be difficult to detect.

    "It's very hard to keep track of that and have accountability," said McGeehee.

    Where she sees danger in the advent of Super PACs, Lee Habeeb sees opportunity.

    "(The) Super PAC is constitutional, so it's with us for a while," he said. "To the talented will go some real spoils."

  • Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'

    Gary Franchi, right, has warned of a 9/11 cover-up, FEMA concentration camps and the New World Order. He leads a Super PAC using unlimited campaign contributions to support Ron Paul, left, in the Republican presidential race.

    By Bill Dedman
    Investigative Reporter, NBC News

    As libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.

    A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are "outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American." The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.

    We first noticed Revolution PAC last week, when it told the Federal Election Commission that it couldn't meet the deadline to identify its donors, because of an error by its bank. Now Revolution PAC has filed its report.

    As with many other so-called "independent" Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations outside the normal rules of campaign finance, the pro-Paul group is operated by people with close ties to the candidate. The group's advisory board members include Penny Langford Freeman, Paul's political director from 1998 to 2007, and Joe Becker, chief legal counsel for Ron Paul 2008.

    The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.

    The 34-year-old political activist from the Chicago suburbs told msnbc.com that his goal is a "non-violent intellectual revolution, which results in a full restoration of the federal Constitution."

    Online videos produced by Franchi, and online interviews with him, add specifics:

    • Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports "the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order," a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, "I just don't buy into that. That's a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It's almost out of the Twilight Zone."
    • According to a 2010 reportby the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic fringe groups, "Gary Franchi is one of the leading promoters of a resurgent Patriot conspiracy theory that alleges the government is creating concentration camps for U.S. citizens." In 2009 he co-wrote and co-produced the video "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown," which claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is creating concentration camps on air bases and in vacant buildings to house political dissenters when the federal government proclaims martial law. "Your church may have already signed a deal with the devil," reads promotional material for the film. The film questions whether Census data will be used to round up Americans. Clips from Franchi's film on YouTube show Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11.
    • Franchi operates Restore the Republic, which opposes the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the income tax, decries the control of the economy by the Rockefellers and the "banking cartel," and warns of government plans to plant RFID microchips into all Americans. The group was founded by Franchi and filmmaker and Libertarian presidential candidate Aaron Russo, and has been operated by Franchi since Russo's death from cancer in 2007. RTR shares an address with Revolution PAC in Northbrook, Ill. The group, which describes itself as a social media platform for like-minded individuals, promotes Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism," in which Ron Paul declares, "If that's the definition of a police state — that you can't do anything unless the government gives you permission —we're well on our way." In a YouTube video interview with Franchi in 2008, Paul credited the Russo video with bringing a lot of people to his presidential campaign. The group has also placed billboards fueling the bogus claim that Obama is not an American citizen, asking, "Where's the REAL birth certificate?"
    YouTube

    Gary Franchi's film "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown" shows Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11.

    Franchi has been a frequent guest of Texas talk show host Alex Jones, who warns about the New World Order on his infowars.com and other websites. In a videotaped interview with Jones, Franchi explained that at 17 he began to read about "the committee of 300, the Club of Rome, the Council of Foreign Relations," and other groups of the New World Order.

    He said his parents, thinking he was mentally ill, had him heavily medicated for 10 years. But he continued his reading, particularly about the implantation of RFID microchips by government, and formed the Lone Lantern Society to tell people that "the enemies are here."

    "It's the truth, it's the message, that's piercing the darkness," Franchi told Jones. "Anything that's done in darkness, anything that is hidden in secret will be revealed. It's having an impact. People are waking up by the millions, Alex, by the millions! The New World Order does not stand a chance."

    'Derogatory'
    Franchi agreed to answer questions from msnbc.com, but only by email.

    He said labels are distracting, and the description of him by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "conspiracy theorist" is "derogatory and inflammatory language."

    In regard to Sept. 11, he said his view is that "I personally, alongside Russo, 9/11 Family members, and thousands of architects and engineers do advocate for a more thorough investigation, preferably free from the Executive Privilege invoked during the Bush Administration."

    Of Paul, Franchi said, "Ron Paul is my candidate because he understands what is affecting this nation, i.e. the Federal Reserve, an unsustainable foreign policy, and the loss of civil liberties under the guise of security."

    Orlin Wagner / AP

    Ron Paul has credited Franchi for bringing in more supporters for his presidential campaign.

    Paul has had a vague and uncertain connection with fringe views and conspiracy peddlers for decades. In several cases he has welcomed their support, neither repudiating their views nor explicitly endorsing them.

    For example, in 2007 Paul was asked by a student and 9/11 skeptic, "We've heard that you have questioned the government's official account." Paul replied, "Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever."

    When asked if that meant that he wanted an additional investigation, he added, "I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."

    The year-end accounting to the FEC by Revolution PAC shows that it brought in $518,201 during the second half of 2011, since its founding last summer, and spent $434,432 supporting Paul, with $83,770 in cash on hand at the end of the year.

    These amounts are small compared with the official Paul campaign, which raised $26 million (second to Romney among Republican candidates) by year end, and another pro-Paul Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, which spent $3.3 million. A third pro-Paul Super Pac, Santa Rita, spent $320,000.

    Larger donors to the Revolution PAC include Texas rancher Margaret Bowman, who gave $50,000; and Scott Banister, an early investor in PayPal, who gave $10,000. Another $10,000 came from Judy Kay Gray, of Buffalo Grove, Ill., who paid $2.5 million to settle a false advertising claim by the Federal Trade Commission in 2008 regarding her company, North American Herb and Spice, and its claims that its oregano oil treated cold and flu.

    Large donors received a free book signed by Thomas Woods, an author and member of the Revolution PAC advisory board. Woods is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises is one of the members of the Austrian School of Economics, whose ideas have influenced Paul, such as his call for a return to a gold standard. The PAC paid Woods $1,200 to sign his books for donors.

    Gary Franchi on his webcast Reality Report.

    The Revolution PAC paid $41,487 to Franchi or his group Restore the Republic, including $3,000 a month in management fees, $1,766 a month in rent at their shared office in Northbrook, Ill., and a 10 percent commission on large financial donations solicited. Franchi, the group's chairman and treasurer, said in response to questions that these are reasonable charges, much lower than is common, and that he has provided more support to the PAC than it has paid to him, considering the value of his in-kind donations of his time and services.

    "I am personally not a representative for Dr. Paul nor should my beliefs be construed to be his," Franchi told msnbc.com. "Nor am I sure if Ron Paul believes in all the issues that concern me, however I do know I stand with him on the constitutional issues he continues to highlight throughout this election cycle and as he has done for over 20 years. That is why I formed Revolution PAC and produce content that I feel highlight his principled consistency and advocacy of fidelity to the Constitution."

    ---

    Should Ron Paul accept support from Revolution PAC? Post your comment below.

    Earlier coverage of the Super PAC financial reports:

    Obama bundler to 'de-register' as lobbyist

    Influence game: big donors and what they want

    NBC video: Million-dollar donors fuel Super PACs

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Casino magnate Adelson's family gave early money to Gingrich PAC

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

  • Influence game: big donors and what they want

    By The Associated Press

    The millionaires, billionaires and companies giving big sums to political committees supporting Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama have important business with the next president. Some are already in trouble with the government. Some are pressing for new laws or regulations that would benefit their interests in energy, mining and high finance.

    The Associated Press reviewed financial reports, regulatory filings, court records, public statements and more to identify favors that the biggest donors so far in the presidential campaign might want in return for their contributions worth $100,000 or more. In some cases, these donors have given $1 million or more to help Obama's challengers or the president.

    An exhaustive review of their motives is nearly impossible, since new federal rules governing such contributions allow donors to effectively remain anonymous if they funnel cash into the campaign through corporate partnerships or other mechanisms that can frustrate investigation.

    The presidential campaigns all have said they do not trade political favors for election money.

    Among AP's findings:

    —An energy firm run by William Koch, a $1 million donor to the pro-Romney political committee, paid to lobby Congress on mining and safety issues and also over a proposed federal land swap that would enlarge the donor's Colorado ranch.

    —The casino company run by Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire whose family has given $11 million to a political committee that supports Gingrich, has acknowledged it's under federal investigation by the Justice Department and a civil probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company denies wrongdoing and says the investigation stems from an allegation by a disgruntled employee. Adelson's family has provided nearly all the money that the pro-Gingrich group has received so far.

    —A hedge fund run by a New York investor, Paul Singer, who gave the pro-Romney group $1 million, has pushed for federal laws that would give official U.S. backing to the firm's legal efforts to profit from the debt of distressed and Third World nations.

    —A board member and former chairman of a prestigious Los Angeles hospital, John C. Law with the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, has given the pro-Obama committee $100,000 as the hospital has lobbied Obama's administration over Medicare and Medicaid funding for teaching hospitals and electronic medical records, the National Institutes of Health and Army research programs.

    — A Pennsylvania coal producer, Consol Energy Inc., which donated $150,000 to the pro-Romney group, paid a $5.5 million fine last year for violations of the Clean Water Act at six of its mines. It is lobbying to prohibit the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Weeks after the company gave money to support Romney, who previously had agreed that humans are contributing to climate change, the candidate appeared to back off that position and said he would oppose spending high amounts of federal money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, like those from coal plants.

    The high-dollar contributions have flowed into the presidential campaign through so-called super PACs, which can support a specific candidate but can't lawfully coordinate their spending with a candidate's campaign. The groups, given a green light by the Supreme Court in 2010 when it stripped limits on corporate and labor union spending in elections, have already proved to be strategically successful for candidates. The pro-Romney group, Restore Our Future, spent $8.8 million on ads in Florida alone — more than Romney's own campaign — and has already booked TV spots in Arizona, Michigan and Minnesota.

    A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, dismissed any suggestion that wealthy donors are motivated by their private interests to fund the committee's operations.

    "To the degree Americans support Mitt Romney," she said, "it's because he can reverse the decline of the Obama economy and get Americans back to work."

    Obama so far has fewer big-money donors. He is able to marshal the resources of the Democratic National Committee, and it is typically easier for incumbents to raise money closer to the November election.

    Public-interest groups have warned since the Supreme Court ruling that wealthy individuals, corporations, unions and other interests would seek favors in return for unlimited campaign contributions.

    "The size of these donations counts for a lot, and the candidates will naturally be grateful to these organizations and their donors," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington. "And with greater support, comes increased gratefulness."

    Consol, which gave $150,000 to support the pro-Romney group, is the largest producer of coal from underground mines, with operations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It also has interests in natural gas, using hydraulic fracturing — known as fracking — to extract gas with high-pressure streams of water, sand and chemicals.

    Most of Consol's coal is sold to electric utilities. Such utilities are the dominant source of sulfur and carbon dioxide emissions, and Consol has backed Republican efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama from issuing greenhouse gas regulations that the company says could increase its costs and affect the market for coal and natural gas.

    Consol spent more than $3 million on energy and environmental lobbying last year, including the hiring of a Washington firm, Forscey & Stinson, to support legislation that would prohibit the EPA from issuing the greenhouse gas rules.

    Romney once expressed clear concerns about global warming. Last June, he told a New Hampshire town hall that humans have contributed to climate change, although it is not clear by how much. "And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you're seeing," he said.

    On Oct. 27, after Consol gave $150,000 to help Romney's presidential campaign, he visited the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, the arena where the National Hockey League's Penguins play. "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet," Romney said. "And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions is not the right course for us."

    Six days after Romney's remarks, his campaign deposited $1,000 checks from four of Consol's senior executives." Another executive, J. Brett Harvey, the company's chief executive officer, also serves on Romney's 2012 Pennsylvania Finance Committee.

    Consul spokeswoman Lynn Seay said it is common practice for the company "to support political candidates that share a similar philosophy as it relates to a domestic energy policy that recognizes the value and importance of coal and natural gas."

    Last month, the EPA objected to Consol's proposal for a mountaintop removal mine in southern West Virginia that would be one of Appalachia's biggest. The EPA had first objected to a permit for the mine on the day that Obama was inaugurated.

    Among the pro-Obama group's biggest donors, the Service Employees International Union, has given $1 million so far toward his re-election as it fights Republican plans to restrict the National Labor Relations Board's authority to force employers to move or close plants in efforts to avoid unionization.

    The Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, also received $100,000 from Law, the managing director of Warland Investments, a commercial real estate and investment firm in Santa Monica, Calif. Law is on the board at Cedars-Sinai and was previously the hospital's chairman. The hospital spent $369,000 in 2011 lobbying on federal health policies during Obama's presidency, according to Senate records.

    The pro-Gingrich group, Winning Our Future, has been kept running largely with money from casino mogul Adelson. He and his wife, Miriam, gave $5 million each this month. Miriam's eldest daughter gave $500,000, and her other daughter and son-in-law donated $250,000 each.

    Adelson's casino, Las Vegas Sands Corp., has been the target of federal investigations, in part over allegations that the company bribed officials in expanding its Chinese business. A spokesman declined to publicly discuss his boss' support for Gingrich. Adelson wrote last month in an email to The Washington Post: "My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife, Miriam, and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy."

    The head of a New York-based hedge fund, Singer of Renaissance Technologies, gave the Romney super PAC $1 million. Renaissance lobbied Congress last year on proposals that would aid hedge funds in efforts to collect on debts purchased from Argentina and other foreign governments. Renaissance is one of several international hedge funds that have bought debt in distressed and Third World nations at low prices and sometimes have used lawsuits to force the countries to pay restitution.

    A spokesman, Peter Truell, declined to discuss Singer's support for Romney but Renaissance officials have said that buying sovereign debt is only one aspect of the company's business.

    Singer has also been outspoken in his criticism of some aspects of the massive overhaul of banking and trading regulations brought by the Dodd-Frank Act and other legislation since the recession. Last August, Romney told a New Hampshire audience that he favored repealing the Dodd-Frank law.

    Another executive, William Koch, also gave $1 million to the Romney super PAC from his personal funds and corporate accounts. Koch runs Oxbow Carbon LLC, a fossil fuels processor and mining company that wants changes to laws and regulations on mining, safety issues and climate change. Unlike his brothers, Charles and David Koch, who are long-time supporters of conservative causes, Bill Koch has funded both GOP and Democratic candidates in the past.

    "Despite the political statements, this administration has done nothing to help the coal industry, and we feel their energy policy is debatable," said Brad Goldstein, an Oxbow spokesman.

    Oxbow also pushed for approval of the Central Rockies Land Exchange, a proposed swap of land tracts in Colorado and Utah to enlarge Koch's 4,500-acre Bear Ranch. The proposed deal with the federal government would allow Koch to acquire several adjacent parcels of federal land in exchange for turning other tracts over to the U.S. The proposal, which requires congressional approval, has brought some local opposition but is under consideration.

    ___

    AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner contributed to this report.

    Contact the Washington investigative team at DCinvestigations (at) ap.org

    Follow Jack Gillum at http://twitter.com/jackgillum

    © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Pro-Ron Paul PAC misses $$$ deadline, blames credit card company

    By Bill Dedman
    Investigative Reporter, NBC News

    A Super PAC supporting Ron Paul was the only major presidential fundraising operation to miss Tuesday's federal deadline for disclosing its donors. The Revolution PAC blamed an error by its credit card company.

    Because of bad information provided by the company, the PAC told the Federal Election Commission, it didn't know who its donors were.

    The Super PAC is not the same as the official campaign for Paul, a libertarian and Texas Republican member of Congress. The campaign filed its report on time, and by law the PAC can't coordinate its activities with the campaign, although the PAC is operated by Paul supporters, including his former political director.

    "To Whom It May Concern," the Revolution PAC wrote to the FEC at 11:48 p.m. ET Tuesday, just 12 minutes before the midnight deadline for its legally required report.

    "Please be advised that on the afternoon of Tuesday, Jan 31, Revolution PAC ... was advised by one of its credit card processing vendors that said vendor had provided erroneous information. As a result, credit card donations reported by the vendor and recorded by the PAC were erroneous.

    "As we do not have compete details on the specific donations involved, we are unable to correct our information prior to the filing deadline, and are therefore not filing any report at this time.

    "We will contact our FEC advisor Feb 1 to determine how best to proceed."

    The Super PAC didn't name the credit card company.

    The Revolution PAC has been filing its separate reports of expenditures, and has spent $126,000 so far, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    A profile of the group is available from the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative reporting group. Its leaders include Gary Franchi, Web-TV host and director of Restore the Republic, an online clearinghouse and social media site for Ron Paul followers; Lawrence W. Lepard, Venture capital investor at Equity Management Associates, and Penny Langford Freeman, Paul’s former political director.

    Two other PACs supporting Paul did file their reports on time.

    Endorse Liberty reported $1,020,055 in receipts.

    Nearly all of its revenue, $900,000, came from hedge fund manager Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal. The group also got $10,000 from Sean Wheeler of Marietta, Ga., CEO of Pure Hypnosis, which sells a hypnotic treatment for smoking addiction.

    A list of the donors to Endorse Liberty is here.

    Another pro-Paul PAC, the Santa Rita Super PAC, reported 234,096 in receipts.

    Donors to Santa Rita include hedge fund manager Mark Hart III and Shannon Hart, of Fort Worth, $100,000; real estate investor Donald Huffines of Dallas, $50,000; and Patrick Walker of Little Rock, $50,000. All listed their occupation as self-employed investor.

    A list of the donors to Santa Rita is here.

    Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

    The Ron Paul presidential campaign organization filed its report on time, showing $26,104,721 in receipts and $24,199,806 in expenditures so far in this election.

    A list of the campaign's 22,956 donors is here.

    Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

    After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

    Casino magnate Adelson's family gave early money to Gingrich PAC

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

  • Video: Michael Isikoff reports on Obama campaign finances

    President Obama's campaign released a report naming big money bundlers—including Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley CEOs--who have raised $71 million for his reelection and the Democratic National Committee. The Obama campaign collected $140 million in 2011 and had $82 million cash on hand at year's end. National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff reports.

  • After TV cameras leave, Romney Super PAC discloses $18 million

    NBC's Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff takes a look at the released information on Super PAC fundraising and donors. Romney donors include Wall St. hedge fund managers and a Koch brother.

    By Bill Dedman, msnbc.com, and Michael Isikoff, NBC News
    with reporting by NBC's Azriel Relph and Lisa Riordan Seville

    After the speeches were over and the TV cameras in Florida were turned off, the pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC called Restore Our Future disclosed its fundraising Tuesday night, just before the midnight ET deadline.

    It showed total receipts of $17.9 million during the last six months of last year. It had previously reported raising $12.2 million in the first six months of the year. The PAC ended the year with $23.6 million in the bank, hoarding a huge bankroll for the primaries and general election. The figures for January are not yet included.

    Top Wall Street moguls from big hedge fund and private equity firms, including principals from Bain Capital,  topped the list of donors that pumped more than $17.9 million into the Mitt Romney Super PAC,  helping to bankroll attack ads in the Republican primary states.

    But while the filing by Restore Our Future shows its formidable fundraising prowess, it will do little to alleviate criticism that Romney is too closely tied to Wall Street and other corporate interests.

    The Romney Super PAC collected seven $1 million donations, including one from Paul Singer, the billionaire and secretive head of the Elliott Management hedge fund, and two others from hedge fund kingpins Julian Robertson of Tiger Management and Robert Mercer of Rennaissance Technologies.

    Others accounting for $1 million donations included Florida energy executive Bill Koch of Oxbow Carbon, who has also been a fundraiser for Romney's presidential campaign; Miguel Fernandez, who chairs a Miami private equity firm MBF Healthcare Partners; and Rooney Holdings of Tulsa Oklahoma.

    Also giving a total of $1 million were firms headed by Frank L. VanderSloot of Idaho. He is also the co-chair of Romney's Idaho finance operation. His firms, operating under the names Melaleuca Inc., Melaleuca of Asia Ltd. Co., Melaleuca of Japan Inc., Melaleuca of Southeast Asia Inc., gave a total of $250,000. The company sells Nicole Miller Timeless Age Defying Serum and other home "wellness"  remedies. Forbes magazine has a profile of VanderSloot here.

    Three executives of Bain Capital, the private equity firm formerly headed by Romney, gave a total of $625,000.

    Romney has insisted he is not involved in the Super PAC and has no control over its ad buys or messages. But further evidence that the group is working closely with Romney's interests came Tuesday night when Restore Our Future held back its required filing with the Federal Election Commission until after Romney had given his victory speech in the Florida primary.

    The filing underscores the key role of wealthy donors and companies in funding the super pacs. Some 62 of its contributors gave $100,000 or more.

    Other big donors include:

    Chris Shumway, Shumway Capital Investments, Greenwich, Conn., $750,000.

    Bob Perry, Perry Homes, Houston, $500,000.

    Steven Webster, Avista Capital, Houston, $500,000.

    The full list of donors is here.

    By contrast, a Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich reported $2.1 million, not counting $10 million from a casino magnate donated in January.

    The Super PAC supporting President Obama reported $4.4 million received by year end. A Super PAC supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has dropped out of the Republican race, reported $5.5 million.

    Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

    Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

    Casino magnate Adelson's family gave early money to Gingrich PAC

    Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

    Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

    Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

    Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

    Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

    Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

     

Older posts