Updated 5:20 p.m. ET -- The biggest corporate contributor in the 2012 election so far doesn’t appear to make anything — other than very large contributions to a conservative super PAC.

Specialty Group Inc., of Knoxville, Tenn., donated nearly $5.3 million between Oct. 1 and Oct. 11 to FreedomWorks for America, which is affiliated with former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

FreedomWorks’ super PAC has spent more than $19 million on political advertising, including $1.7 million on Oct. 29 opposing Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat running for Congress in Illinois against Tea Party favorite Joe Walsh, a first-term incumbent.

The buy was more than four times greater than the group’s previous largest single expenditure.

Specialty was formed only a month ago. Its “principal office” is a private home in Knoxville. It has no website. And the only name associated with it is that of its registered agent, William S. Rose Jr., a lawyer whose phone number, listed in a legal directory, is disconnected.

Rose released a press release Monday saying the company was created to "buy, sell, develop and invest in a variety of real estate ventures and investments." 

In the six-page statement, Rose said he was a "disappointed, yet staunchly patriotic, baby boomer" with concerns about the administration's handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, as well as the Department of Justice's botched "Operation Fast and Furious" gun-walking program. 

Specialty is the biggest and most mysterious corporate donor to super PACs, but it is not unique.

A new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics shows that companies have contributed roughly $75 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle.

Super PACs, which were created in the wake of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010, can accept donations of unlimited size from corporations, unions and individuals. They spend the funds mostly on negative advertising.

The centers’ analysis found that 85 percent of money from companies flowed to GOP-aligned groups, 11 percent went to Democratic groups and the remainder went to organizations not aligned with either party.

First Read: Full coverage on the campaign trail

Prior to Citizens United, corporate spending on candidate advertising was not allowed. The decision raised fears that massive donations from corporate treasuries would flood the election in 2012.

In fact, the largest amounts have come from wealthy businessmen. However, about 11 percent of the $660 million raised by all super PACs through mid-October has come from company treasuries — mostly privately held businesses, sometimes organized as limited partnerships or limited liability companies.

High-profile donors
Yet a few high-profile companies haven’t been afraid to jump into the partisan fray.

In mid-October, oil and gas giant Chevron donated $2.5 million to a super PAC close to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the Congressional Leadership Fund, which has aired a bevy of ads attacking Democratic House candidates.

Oxbow Carbon, the energy company owned by billionaire William Koch, the lesser-known brother of conservative industrialists David and Charles Koch, and Contran Corp., the business of Republican super donor Harold Simmons of Texas, have both steered significant sums to the coffers of super PACs.

Oxbow Carbon has donated $4.25 million to GOP super PACs, making it the No. 2 corporate donor to super PACs, while Contran, No. 3, has donated more than $3 million to Republican-aligned groups.

Another top corporate donor is a retirement community in central Florida known as The Villages — a Republican stronghold where Paul Ryan held his first campaign rally the day after GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney named him as his running mate.

Developer H. Gary Morse created The Villages more than 50 years ago, and this election cycle, more than a dozen companies connected to Morse and The Villages have collectively steered $1.6 million to GOP super PACs. That’s in addition to the $450,000 that Morse and his wife, Renee, have donated from their personal funds.

Notably, Morse is also the Florida co-chairman of the Romney campaign, and during the Republican National Convention, Morse’s Cayman Island-flagged yacht, named “Cracker Bay,” was the site of a soiree for some of Romney’s top donors and fundraisers.

Other high-profile corporate donors include:

• The Apollo Group, a for-profit education company, which gave $75,000 to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future and another $5,000 to JAN PAC, the super PAC of Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer;
• Convenience store giant 7-Eleven, which donated $25,000 to Hoosiers for Jobs, a super PAC that supported Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., during his failed primary campaign;
• Hamburger chain White Castle, which gave $25,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund;
• Defense contractor B/E Aerospace, which gave $50,000 to Restore Our Future;
• Payday lender QC Holdings, which gave $25,000 to Restore Our Future; and
• Weaver Holdings, the parent company of the Indiana-popcorn company known for its brands “Pop Weaver” and “Trail’s End,” sold by Boy Scouts across the country, which has donated $2.4 million to American Crossroads, the super PAC founded by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

Only a few other Fortune 500 companies have joined Chevron, which ranks third on the elite list behind only Exxon Mobil and Walmart, in making contributions to super PACs, and none has given as much as the energy giant.

Caesar’s Entertainment Corp., for instance, ranked by Fortune at No. 288, has given $150,000 to Majority PAC, a group that is spending to help Democrats retain the majority in the U.S. Senate.

“Fortune 500 companies are the least likely to be the ones who will be out in front giving publicly,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine. “They want to have influence over elections and elected officials, but they don't want to alienate customers.”

By category, companies in the finance, insurance and real estate sector donated more than $15 million, “general business sector” firms gave about $14 million and energy sector companies contributed more than $11 million, according to the analysis.

Unions, by contrast, have donated about $60 million to super PACs, from their treasuries or political action committees.

The top union donors include the National Education Association ($9 million), the United Auto Workers ($8.6 million) and the AFL-CIO ($6.4 million). All of these groups have spent heavily on Democratic candidates.

Money 'hiding in plain sight'
Additional corporate money may be flowing through politically active nonprofits that don’t disclose their funders.

“I strongly suspect that most of the corporate money is hiding in plain sight in trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at the Stetson University College of Law.

For its part, the Chamber — which collects dues from companies such as Aetna, Chevron, Dow Chemical and Microsoft — has reported spending more than $35 million on political ads, which have overwhelmingly favored Republican politicians.

Facts about Specialty Group Inc. are scant.

Records filed with the Tennessee Secretary of State’s office show it registered on Sept. 26, listing 61-year-old attorney William S. Rose, Jr., as its agent. Rose’s $634,000 home — about a 30-minute drive from downtown Knoxville — is listed as its “principal office.”

Yet the company’s money has made a huge impact.

After the cash infusion from Specialty, FreedomWorks produced numerous advertisements, including one that blasts Duckworth as a crony of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and sentenced to 14 years in federal prison following a corruption scandal.

Duckworth is a double amputee and Iraq War veteran. She headed Illinois’ Department of Veteran Affairs and later served in President Barack Obama’s U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

FreedomWorks’ new ad features grainy footage of Duckworth and audio of her saying, “Gov. Blagojevich has charged me with the mission of taking care of my buddies, and that is what I’m doing.” But it leaves out the fact that when she said “buddies,” she was referring to other veterans and members of the military.

FreedomWorks for America treasurer and legal counsel Ryan Hecker says the organization only supports candidates who are “ethically right.”

Anton Becker, Duckworth's campaign press secretary, says it’s conservative outside groups who are peddling "lies."

When asked for details about Specialty Group and the source of its contributions, Hecker expressed ignorance, and doubted that voters care about where the money came from.

“We are in compliance with the law, and we are doing what we can to report to the Federal Election Commission,” he said. “If there’s an issue with Specialty, it’s their issue. It’s not our issue.”

Andrea Fuller of the Center for Public Integrity contributed to this report.

This story is a collaboration between the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics. For up-to-date news on outside spending in the 2012 election, follow our Source2012 Tumblr and the hashtag #Source2012 on Twitter.

More from Open Channel:

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

AP

Steve Mostyn, 41, a Houston-based personal injury attorney, said he was inspired by President Barack Obama's performance in the Oct. 16 debate to donate another $1 million to a Democratic Super PAC run by former White House aides.

A wealthy Texas trial lawyer -- known as the king of hurricane torts -- wired $1 million to the main Super PAC backing President Barack Obama late last week, solidifying his standing as one of the chief bankrollers of Democratic causes in this year’s election.

With his latest seven figure donation, Houston personal injury lawyer Steve Mostyn -- an ardent foe of tort reform -- has now contributed $3 million to Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC run by two former White House aides. His latest contribution -- in addition to another $500,000  given by his wife to an allied group -- underscores the heavy reliance of Democratic Super PACs on a small number of mega donors. (Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions and individuals.)  

Mostyn told NBC News that he agreed to wire the additional $1 million last week after watching the second debate at Hofstra University on Long Island and getting energized by the president’s more forceful performance than during the first debate.

“I needed to see some fight,” he said of the president’s performance. He also said he expects the Super PAC to use his cash to help fund more attack ads hammering Republican rival Mitt Romney over his Bain Capital past, portraying him as a heartless executive who destroys jobs rather than creates them. Although Priorities USA Action ads (and Obama campaign ads) hit that theme hard over the summer, now is when “you’re speaking to low-information voters,” Mostyn said.

New campaign finance reports filed over the weekend show the Obama Super PAC is in relatively good shape to send the message. The group reported that it collected $15.2 million in September – outraising Restore Our Future, the main pro-Romney Super PAC, for the second month in a row. (This figure predates Mostyn’s latest cash infusion.)

While GOP Super PACs have still outraised and so far outspent their Democratic counterparts, the combined total of $31.4 million raised by Priorities USA and its two allies (Majority PAC and House Majority PAC) shows they are now fully armed to compete against an expected pro-GOP ad blitz in the last two weeks.

But while the Obama campaign has touted its reliance on small donors, the most striking feature of the latest Democratic Super PAC numbers is the outsized role played by just a handful of super-rich mega donors in funding the group.

Of the $52 million that Priorities USA Action has raised for the entire election cycle, $19 million (or nearly 40) percent came from just six individuals. Besides Mostyn, these include: Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of Dreamworks Animation, who has given $3 million;  Fred Eychaner, a Chicago based media mogul whose print empire includes the Chicago Reader, who has given $3.5 million;  James  Simons, the hedge fund billionaire founder of Renaissance Technologies, who has given $3.5 million;  Irwin Jacobs, a San Diego billionaire and the founder and former CEO of Qualcomm ($2 million); and  Jon Stryker, a philanthropist and gay rights activist ($2 million.) Other big donations to Priorities USA Action last month included $1 million from director Steven Spielberg, $1 million from famed trial lawyer David Boies (who argued for Al Gore in the 2000 Florida recount case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court) and $300,000 from Sam Walton, the chairman of Walmart.   

The mega donor phenomenon is hardly unique to the Democrats, of course. These donations still pale next to the $40 million that Las Vegas gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson has funneled this cycle into GOP Super PACs, including $10 million to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future. And the Romney Super PAC reported that Bob Perry, the publicity shy Texas homebuilder best known for helping fund the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry in 2004, gave another $2 million last month, bringing his total donations to $9 million. That means that Perry and Adelson alone have accounted for nearly 20 percent of the Restore Our Future’s total $111 million haul. 

Twinned with Perry’s cash, the Mostyn donations to Priorities USA Action gives the presidential contest the flavor of a Texas grudge match. The two men have been among the major funders of the years-long fight in Texas over tort reform. Perry (whose home-building company has been hit with massive multimillion-dollar lawsuits brought by trial lawyers) has helped bankroll Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a pro-business group that has fought to rein in lawsuits.  Mostyn, who has specialized in mass class-action lawsuits brought by hurricane victims, has been a major financier of the opposition.

A past president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Mostyn has also been a somewhat controversial figure in state legal circles. He’s known as “Hurricane Mostyn” due to the class-action lawsuit he brought against the Texas Wind Insurance Association (TWIA) on behalf of the victims of  Hurricane Ike, which devastated the Texas coast in 2008. The lawsuit, alleging the mishandling of insurance claims, led to a $189 million settlement -- $86 million of which reportedly went in fees to his law firm. That, in turn, triggered an increase in premium payments by the TWIA and calls by Republicans in the state Legislature to curb what were called the association’s “out-of-control legal expenses.”

Like most big donors, Mostyn tells NBC News that his main concern is good government, not any special benefits he might receive from the White House (such as his private meeting with the president last spring at the W Hotel after he gave his first $2 million to Priorities USA Action.) He said he shares the general liberal distaste for Super PACs, but given the vast amounts flowing into the GOP Super PACs, he was persuaded to contribute to Priorities USA Action by Paul Begala and Bill Burton during a meeting aboard his yacht last spring: “You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” he said.

Michael Isikoff is a national investigative correspondent for NBC News.

More from Open Channel:

 

• Tracking secretive opponent of Montana campaign finance laws
• To fight obesity, WHO agency partners with soft drink, snack makers
• 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

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

While publicly pledging to refuse corporate money, the official host committee for this week’s Democratic National Convention has quietly and aggressively courted corporate donors — using a sister nonprofit that has been offering firms special “sponsorship opportunities” if they ponied up $1 million or more to help cover the costs of the event.

A 13-page marketing brochure obtained by NBC News shows how New American City, a nonprofit that is closely affiliated with the official Democratic convention host committee,  offered package deals to corporate contributors — with different benefits starting at levels of $100,000 and escalating to the top “Tryon Street Level” of $1 million.

The companies that reached the seven-figure level got “naming rights” at “villages” set up for a Charlotte street festival that opened up the convention, as well as guarantees that “your logo will be featured prominently.” The firms also got to put up banners and logos at other convention-related events — such as a delegate and media welcoming parties — as well as the chance  to include their logos in gift bags that are being handed out to 6,000 delegates and over 15, 000 members of the media.

The use of New American City to tap corporate funds appears to have worked. While Charlotte in 2012 has struggled to meet its $37 million fundraising goal, New American City has raised about $15 million from corporate donors that include Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Duke Power and Time Warner Cable, according to public statements by foundation and host committee officials.

The courtship of big corporate donors by New American City stands in contrast to much of the rhetoric that Democrats have used to describe this week’s Charlotte convention. ” By publicly stating that they wouldn’t take money from corporations and lobbyists — or any donations over $100,000 — for the official convention host committee, the Democrats have said they are holding a “people’s convention” unlike any that has come before it.

But campaign spending watchdogs say that the operations of New American City (the foundation accepts donations from lobbyists as well as corporations) reveal some of the Democrats’ claims to be hollow.  

“It’s amazing how creative Democrats can be finding loopholes around their own rules,” said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a group that t has been tracking the role that corporations and lobbyists have played at both party’s conventions. “It’s the Super Bowl for special interests at the convention. We’re seeing it in Charlotte the same way that we saw it in Tampa.”

New American City is a nonprofit  set up by Charlotte in 2012 — the name of the official host committee — initially to promote “Charlotte hospitality” and showcase  the city’s reputation “as a New South City,” according to the marketing brochure. But it has  much of the same staff as Charlotte in 2012 (the foundation’s finance and deputy finance director are the same) and many of the corporate funds that have gone to New American City have been used to pay expenses that would normally be covered by the official host committee. 

Suzi Emmerling, who serves as spokeswoman for both groups, confirmed that New American City has paid  “administrative costs” for the convention, such as the salaries and health care benefits of the host committee staff as well as delegate and media welcoming parties and the Charlotte street festival called CarolinaFest.

But Emmerling said that no corporate money has been used to pay for “official convention” costs as outlined in a contract signed by the Charlotte in 2012 with the Democratic National Committee. She also said that this year’s Democratic convention has gone further than any previous convention in attracting small individual donors, receiving 85 times more such contributions than the Democrats got in 2008.

“We’ve dramatically expanded the donor base,” she said. “We have gone further than any other convention in trying to keep out corporate money.”

Corporate and lobbying money has long been a staple of political conventions of both parties; the Republicans placed no restrictions on taking such funds for its convention in Tampa. Moreover, while touting its enlarged base of smaller donors, the Democratic convention host committee has also made strong efforts to attract money from big party bundlers — many of whom have invaded Charlotte, taken over posh watering holes like the bar at the Ritz Carlton Hotel and who are attending many of the glitzy parties sponsored by big lobbying groups and corporations such as the Recording Industry Association, the Distilled Spirits Council and Google.

A separate package released by Charlotte in 2012 describes a range of packages offered to such party bundlers and big donors. A “Carolina Package” for those who raised $1 million entitled donors to  “premier uptown hotel” rooms, concierge services, priority access for rental facilities and multiple “gold tickets” to convention events, including parties. Lesser packages for those raising $650,000, or $500,000 (the “Trustee Plus” package or the “Piedmont Package,” respectively) also got premier rooms and tickets to convention events, but fewer in number.

Despite the organizers’ promise to hold “the most transparent convention” in history and initial pledge to release the names of all donors in real time, the convention organizers now say they won’t release a complete list of the donors to either group until they are required to do under federal election law — next month, long after the convention is over.

More from Open Channel:

• Days after filing, medical device manufacturer drops libel suit
• Medical distributor files libel suit over report on fat-melting device
• Could super PAC-backed third-party candidates sway presidential race?
• CIA ends investigation of terror detainees' deaths without charges
• S. African telecom firm helped Iran evade US sanctions, documents show
• Vote on an iPad? Technology could supplant voter IDs at polls
• One of the most dangerous cities in the US plans to ditch its police force
• Navy sought to stifle concerns about radiation at ex-base, emails show

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

ANALYSIS

The judge’s ruling was written on the lawyers’ faces.  Last Friday, after Catherine Eagles denied John Edwards’s motion to dismiss the six felony charges against him at the close of the government’s case, the former Democratic senator’s lead attorney sat red-cheeked and grim.  To his right, the typically stiff lips of the federal prosecutors curled into small grins.  

While Edwards’ request to have the case thrown out for lack of evidence was a long shot, the decision highlights the ever increasing peril Edwards faces and previews what’s to come. The transcript of the argument is a worthy read for anyone whose interest in the trial is more than passing and, thanks to NBC News, it’s available here. For Edwards case followers in a hurry, here are four ways the seemingly routine motion is actually a big deal. 

Odds of Edwards going to prison just increased
When Edwards decided to contest the government’s claim that he violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) rather than reach a plea deal, his risk analysis included the hope that a judge would end the case long before jury deliberations began.  While such court-ordered judgments of acquittal are infrequent, they are not unheard of.  Indeed, in May 2011 a district court judge from the same appellate circuit (the Fourth) stopped the prosecution of a corporate lawyer on obstruction of justice charges because of the government’s failure to prove its case.  

Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hill, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of North Carolina.

Edwards’ hope for a similar outcome rested primarily on the novelty of the government’s theory: never before has money from third-parties (Fred Baron and Rachel “Bunny” Mellon) to other third-parties (Andrew and Cheri Young with a smaller amount to Rielle Hunter) led to a candidate’s indictment under the FECA.  Last fall, Edwards spent hundreds of pages briefing that argument (i.e, that he had no “notice” that such an arrangement could be illegal and thus no criminal intent) plus other reasons for dismissal…and lost.   Last week, Edwards attorney, Abbe Lowell, spent 90 minutes again beseeching Eagles to end the prosecution…and lost. 

For years, Edwards the plaintiffs’ attorney fought as hard as he could to overcome opponents’ efforts for judge-directed dismissals so the outcome of his clients’ personal injury claims could be determined by a jury.  Ironically, if Edwards the defendant had known for sure that his own case would go all the way to the jury, I’m not sure he would have rejected whatever the government’s best plea deal was. 

How judge's ruling was unnerving for Edwards camp 
In the run up to his motion argument, Lowell gently expressed to Eagles his hope that she would devote the weekend or at least much of Friday to considering his arguments before ruling.  Rather than rejecting the motion after days or hours of pondering, Eagles did so in minutes.  Moreover, the judge allowed that the “closest questions in my mind have to do with some of these venue issues” (i.e., did the crimes Edwards is accused of have a sufficient connection to the district where he is being tried).  Both the speed and substance of her decision suggest that Eagles has little concern about the prosecution’s theory or the quality and quantity of evidence presented in the government’s case. 

Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com

Analysis by Hampton Dellinger

More bad news in battle over experts?
In the face of Friday’s setback, the defense doesn’t appear to be shrinking from its chief argument for dismissal: that the government has not proved and cannot prove “that Mr. Edwards acted with knowledge that his actions would violate campaign laws.” Late Friday, the defense submitted its witness list for Monday.  Appearing first: Scott Thomas, the former Federal Election Commission chairman, who is prepared to testify that the prosecution “is without precedent in federal election law and that the FEC would not support a finding that the conduct constituted a civil violation much less warranted a criminal prosecution.”  The problem for Edwards is that the government is contesting vigorously the right of Thomas to testify as an “expert witness” and Eagles on Friday suggested she thought several FEC-related issues were “pretty straightforward.”  Such phrasing is not suggestive of a judge likely to let the former FEC chair testify broadly.  But at this point, Edwards will likely consider it a win if Thomas is allowed to take the stand at all.  

Closing arguments previewed
Friday’s motion hearing made something clear and it's bad news for Edwards: Andrew Young’s story sounds better when someone else tells it.  Skilled federal prosecutor David Harbach opened his oral argument reading excerpts from Young’s most Edwards-damning testimony.  Whether presented via the prosecutor, or Young’s wife, Cheri, the former political aide’s claim that Edwards orchestrated the sex affair cover-up is more compelling when separated from Young's hazy memory and admitted misstatements.  Similarly, Harbach was able to transform the testimony of other witnesses potentially off-putting to jurors (such as the long-winded Wendy Button) into an efficient, effective litany of evidence of guilt.  While Lowell is holding his own as quarterback of the defense team, Harbach’s ability to serve as a likeable standard bearer for the prosecution’s witnesses has to be making Team Edwards nervous -- very nervous -- as closing arguments fast approach.