Dark Money Politics

Tom Edsall on politics inside and outside of Washington.

In the world of nonprofit “dark money” groups, nothing is as it seems: political committees, through the magic of the internal revenue code, become tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations; a partisan campaign ad becomes principled “issue advocacy”; and federal election law that requires public disclosure of donors is rendered toothless by regulatory loopholes.

The flow of cash through organizations asserting tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code has been rising exponentially, from just $5.2 million in 2006 to $310.8 million in 2012.

There is one reason for this growth: 501(c)(4) groups do not have to reveal their donors.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images James Martin, chairman of the 60 Plus Association, and Selena Owens before a Tea Party Express press conference at the National Press Club in Washington on Aug. 4.

Two pie charts — Figure 1 and Figure 2 — drawn up by the Center for Responsive Politics demonstrate the crucial role of conservative non-profits in driving this increase in spending.

Center for Responsive Politics Fig. 1Center for Responsive Politics Fig. 2

The Center, which has dug deeply into this submerged area of American politics, has gathered a lot of the relevant data about the influence of money on American politics at OpenSecrets.org. It makes for instructive reading.

The controversy over the revelation that organizations whose names include the words “Tea Party” were targeted by the I.R.S. for review has provided new cover for politically active conservative organizations, allowing them to charge that investigations of the legitimacy of their tax-exempt status are politically motivated. Many of these groups have, in fact, been explicitly involved in federal election campaigns, as reported upon by The New York Times and Politico.

Sheila Krumholz, the Center’s executive director, told me that despite the denials coming from conservative non-profits her organization has found increasing evidence of practices designed to evade I.R.S. rules governing tax-exempt status and donor disclosure.

The actual I.R.S. rule is worth examining closely:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).

The phrase “not its primary activity” has been interpreted by campaign finance lawyers to mean that a 501(c)(4) organization can spend no more that 49.9% of its money on political activity, according to Krumholz.

In a process she refers to as “money churning,” a hypothetical tax-exempt organization, let’s call it the Good Government Coalition, has $10 million in revenues. The G.G.C. fulfills its obligation to spend just over half its money on non-political activity by giving $5 million plus $1 to another tax-exempt social welfare organization with an ambiguous name, the Liberty Bell Alliance. G.G.C. can now spend what it has left, $4,999,999 on political activity. The Liberty Bell Alliance, which now has $5 million plus $1, can spend just under half, $2,499,999, on political activity. The net result is that of the original $10 million, instead of only $4,999,999 going to political activity, $7,499,998, or 75 percent of the original $10 million, can be spent on politics.

Your eyes glaze over trying to follow money trail between organizations with names like TC4 Trust, the Center for the Protection of Patients’ Rights, Americans for Job Security, American Future Fund and American Commitment – not to mention the difficulty for a layperson, or even for a political professional, of keeping track of the differences between 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(3)s, super PACs, Political Action Committees, independent expenditure groups, and political party committees — or God forbid 501(c)(6)s.

Let’s look at just one “social welfare” 501(c)(4) organization, the 60 Plus Association. The purpose of 60 Plus is to serve as a conservative counter to the A.A.R.P., which many Republicans believe to be a subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

60 Plus claims to be “a non-partisan seniors advocacy group.” Nonpartisanship is crucial for an organization seeking to get and maintain 501(c)(4) tax exempt status as a social welfare organization, which confers the magic right to conceal the identity of donors.

Generously interpreting the 49.9 percent guideline covering political activity, 60 Plus has pushed the non-partisanship rule beyond the limit. Its web site features items like these: “Shameful Democrats Rush to Defense of Their I.R.S. Political Partners”; “House Votes to Repeal Obamacare as Democrats Stand by Corrupt I.R.S.”; “Seniors Overwhelming Support for Romney Could Spell Trouble for Democrats Nationally”; “Democrat Deceptions on Full Display with Paul Ryan Joining GOP Ticket.”

James Martin, the chairman of 60 Plus, demonstrated his “nonpartisanship” just before the 2012 election thus:

Senior citizens better than any other group understand how devastating President Obama’s policies have been to every generation. They won’t sit idly by as he continues to squander our nation’s greatness, and liquidate our future under trillions more in debt.

Martin continued in the same vein:

Never forget, America’s seniors fought in wars and bled to defend freedom and make this country everything it is today. For four long years we’ve watched as this President has trampled on everything that defines us as a nation, and now tramples on his opponent, his predecessor and the truth itself in a desperate plea for four more years. Seniors know a great leader when they see one, regardless of party, and this President falls far short of deserving our consideration or our vote.

In the past two elections, 60 Plus has invested heavily in overtly partisan independent expenditures. In 2012, the tax-exempt organization doled out $4.62 million, $3.19 million of which was spent in support of Republicans, with the remaining $1.43 million spent to defeat Democratic candidates for federal office, including $321,933 to defeat Obama.

In the 2010 elections, 60 Plus spent even more money, $6.72 million, almost all of which, $6.67 million, was allocated to defeat Democratic candidates.

60 Plus is one of the major beneficiaries of the recent surge in the investment of conservative money in 501(c)(4) organizations.

In the two years from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009, the organization’s annual budgets were a modest $1.89 million and $1.81 million, according to 990 forms filed with the I.R.S. and available through the Guidestar web site. In 2009-10, 60 Plus receipts abruptly rose to $16.01 million, and then to $18.58 million in 2010-11. In 2011-12, the total fell to $11.8 million, which was still 650 percent larger than in 2008-09.

This burst of cash was in part the result of multi-million dollar grants to 60 Plus from two of the other “social welfare” groups I mentioned above, TC4 Trust and the Center for the Protection of Patient Rights. The Center for the Protection of Patient Rights has been the subject of investigations by the Center for Responsive Politics, by the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the web-based Republic Report and the Los Angeles Times.

The L.A. Times reported that Charles and David Koch, the conservative billionaire brothers who own Koch Industries, “have several ties” to the Center for the Protection of Patient Rights:

It is run by Sean Noble, a Phoenix-based GOP consultant who is a key operative in the Kochs’ political activities, as noted by the investigative blog Republic Report. One of the center’s original directors, Heather Higgins, is chairwoman of the Independent Women’s Forum, which has received funding from a Koch-controlled foundation. And Cheryl Hillen, a Connecticut-based consultant who raised $2.6 million for the center, was director of fundraising for the Koch-backed Citizens for a Sound Economy.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that the Center to Protect Patient Rights gave 60 Plus a total of $11.39 million, TC4 Trust gave $4.06 million, and other groups gave smaller amounts, including Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS ($50,000) and the American Petroleum Institute ($25,000).

This year, 60 Plus reported in lobbying disclosure forms that in addition to issues affecting seniors, it is supporting off-shore drilling legislation and a measure to permit online gambling. Past issues it has supported have included opposition to the federal telephone excise tax and to legislation allowing drug imports, as well as support for Arctic drilling and the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

60 Plus has been the subject of a number of attempts to restrain its activities, but it remains undaunted. In July 2012, for example, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that 60 Plus, Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity “are ‘political committees’ who have failed to register and disclose with the F.E.C.” The D.S.C.C. dismissed the organizations’ claims of 501(c)(4) status as “spurious” and “risible on their face.” The complaint is still pending before the F.E.C.

In July, 2012, well before the current I.R.S. controversy, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, called on the I.R.S. to investigate the political activities of a dozen 501(c)(4)s, including 60 Plus. Levin’s list included both Republican and Democratic-leaning 501(c)(4)s: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Priorities U.S.A., Americans Elect, American Action Network, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, Americans for Tax Reform, Patriot Majority USA, Club for Growth, Citizens for a Working America Inc. and the Susan B. Anthony List.

60 Plus was not cowed. It is pulling out the stops to capitalize on the controversy regarding the I.R.S. focus on Tea Party groups. In one of his many denunciations of Democrats and the I.R.S., James Martin declared:

The shades of Watergate continue to hover over this scandal. We recall Nixon’s defenders dismissed that as a “3rd rate burglary.” With new revelations coming out by the day and more I.R.S. employees tucking tail, this disgraceful escapade is making Watergate look like a bad hair day by comparison.

Martin appears to be acting on the premise that the best defense is a good offense. (He did not respond to email or phone requests for comment.) In fact, what the past and present activities of 60 Plus, and of a host of other independent expenditure groups, point to is the need for a thorough rewriting of section 501(c)(4) of the tax code to limit the benefits of tax-exempt status – and of the right to conceal the identity of donors — to legitimate “social welfare” organizations.

The current political activities of large numbers of 501(c) organizations in no way constitute the kind of charitable work for which the public would grant favorable tax status as a reward. One of the reasons the people involved with political nonprofits — operatives and donors alike — love secrecy is that they fear public repercussions if their activities have to be conducted in the open. It is by now abundantly clear that abuse of the 501(c)(4) loophole corrupts and corrodes a campaign-finance system that was hardly a model of rectitude to begin with.

View the original article here

Secret money targets 2 props

A group led by former state House Speaker Kirk Adams has directed $1.1million into campaigns opposing two citizen initiatives, fueling a late surge by the opposition and drawing complaints of secrecy from backers of the propositions.

Americans for Responsible Leadership, which is operating as an independent-expenditure committee, has contributed nearly 40 percent of the money to date opposing Proposition 204, a tax measure that would ensure a permanent source of funding for education by extending the temporary 1-cent-per-dollar sales tax.

It also accounts for about 40 percent of the money spent to campaign against Proposition 121, which would establish a new primary system and scrap the partisan system.

State laws do not require the Arizona non-profit group to disclose where it gets its money. But a California court this week may force Americans for Responsible Leadership to name its contributors.

The group has spent $750,000 to oppose Prop. 204 and $415,000 against Prop. 121. In addition to weighing in on the Arizona races, Americans for Responsible Leadership has poured $11million into two California ballot initiatives, triggering the legal complaint that is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. A decision is likely before Election Day.

The group is registered in Arizona as a non-profit that can advocate on issues. California law requires non-profits to disclose their donors if those contributions come from people who acknowledge their dollars will support a political cause.

The battle over disclosure stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United campaign-finance ruling in 2010. The decision allows corporate donors to direct money for political purposes through independent committees without disclosing contributors' identities.

Last week, Common Cause of California accused Americans for Responsible Leadership of attempting to "manipulate" the state's election with "laundered money." Common Cause asked the commission to investigate the group and force it to reveal its donors.

Arizonans are closely watching the case.

Former Mayor Paul Johnson, who is spearheading Prop. 121, questioned the motives of the donors: "You could start by thinking the worst: Is this someone that wants a big state contract? Is this someone that wants a private-prison contract or to adjust the way that our health-care system works? Who is this group? What do they want?"

Ann-Eve Pedersen, chairwoman of the Quality Education and Jobs committee, which brought Prop. 204 to the ballot, is also watching the California court case.

She called the secrecy surrounding the group and its Arizona contributions "troubling" and said it's hard to fight a group that hides the source of its funding.

Pedersen called on state Treasurer Doug Ducey, who is serving as chairman of the No on Prop. 204 Committee, to reveal the donors even though state law does not require that he do so. She said Ducey indicated at a debate last week that he knew who the donors were.

Ducey didn't return a call seeking comment. But Ryan Anderson, who works for DC London, the consultant advising the opposition campaign, said they have no idea who gave the $750,000 to Americans for Responsible Leadership.

"They don't know me, and I don't know them," he said.

By law, a campaign cannot coordinate with an independent-expenditure committee.

Ann Ravel, California Fair Political Practices Commission chairwoman, said laws in that state require organizations such as Americans for Responsible Leadership to disclose donors.

California has stricter disclosure laws than Arizona, and she said the commission will seek more information about the circumstances surrounding the contributions.

Americans for Responsible Leadership spent $11million in California to defeat a proposed tax increase and to support an effort to drastically change the state's campaign-finance system, including banning the practice of political contributions by payroll deduction -- which labor unions rely on to raise political money.

"Our view is that they are required to identify donors unless people gave $11million not knowing at all that it was going to be spent in California for a campaign," Ravel said. "All we are asking for is information -- an audit to see if they fall within our law. Why they would be so unwilling to just let us look at the documents if they think they're acting legally is interesting."

Matt Ross, a publicist for Americans for Responsible Leadership, said the group is acting legally. In an e-mail, he stated, "California's Fair Political Practices Commission does not have the power to conduct audits in advance of the election."

On its website, the group says it promotes government accountability, transparency, ethics and related policy issues.

"For too long, America has been led by politicians who are beholden to special interests and make decisions based on political expediency and self-promotion rather than fiscal discipline and the national interest," the website says. "We need principled leaders who will make tough choices, provide straightforward answers to difficult questions and put our country back on the path to prosperity."

According to filings with the Arizona Corporation Commission, the group was incorporated last year by Robert Graham, a businessman who is running for state Republican Party chairman, and Eric Wnuck, a Republican businessman who ran for Congress in 2010.

Adams, also a Republican, became president this fall, a few weeks after losing his primary race against Matt Salmon for a congressional seat.

Adams did not return phone calls or an e-mail seeking information about the group.

But Graham told The Arizona Republic that the group is trying "to influence the right policies for Arizona" and is on the right side of the law. The group is set up as a non-profit, he said, because that status "allows your contributors to be confidential."

He said that the group is not solely focused on politics, adding that it also works to educate the public about policy. Graham said the group has educated the public generally about policies or proposals it supports or opposes. He did not detail what that "education" entailed.

Graham said the group is funded through in-state and out-of-state individuals and business groups. He would not identify donors. He said the group's non-profit status allows people "to feel like they had the freedom to impact election cycles or initiatives or policies without having a target on their back."

Steve Nickolas, a Valley beverage-industry businessman, and financial adviser Taylor Searle are also listed as group directors. Nickolas referred calls to the publicist; Searle did not return a call for comment.

In addition to Arizona's two ballot measures, the group gave about $11,500 to support House Speaker Andy Tobin's re-election bid. So far, the group has also donated $57,000 to independent committees working to elect Republicans to the Arizona Legislature.

Pedersen questioned why out-of-state donors would care about Prop. 204.

"It just is discouraging to have a citizens' effort, that again is being led by a bunch of volunteer parents, up against this kind of political machinery," Pedersen said. "And not even just from in-state folks, but from people out of state, and we have no idea who they are, what their motives are and why they're trying to buy an election."

In contrast, she said, the "yes" campaign discloses all its donors. Only one, the National Education Association, is from out of state. In that instance, she said, the public knows what the NEA is: a national teachers union.

She said she believes voters are interested in where the campaign money is coming from.

"I think the special-interest argument makes a difference to (voters,)" she said. But without disclosure, it's impossible to know which interests are playing a role in the closely watched education-sales-tax ballot measure, Pedersen said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Money men: Who are top 5 donors to Romney?

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON For a casino mogul worth an estimated $25billion, $34.2 million may sound like chump change. Yet that's how much money Sheldon Adelson has donated so far to aid Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and organizations supporting Romney this election, making him the donor of donors for the GOP.

Other top donors giving millions of dollars to aid Romney's campaign include Texas money moguls and the head of an energy conglomerate.

Political donations can open doors that are closed to most people. Big-dollar donors are often invited to state dinners at the White House and other events with the president.

Based on an examination of more than 2.3 million campaign contributions The Associated Press has ranked the top five financial supporters bankrolling the Republican presidential run:

No. 1

Sheldon Adelson, 79, owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire.

Total: $34.2 million

Adelson is the largest declared donor to the Romney campaign and supporting political committees, providing more than $34.2 million this election season. He and his wife, Miriam, have given $10 million to Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Adelson also joined relatives to give $24million to committees backing former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. And he has made public pledges vowing to give as much as $100million this election more broadly to the GOP. He would benefit from loosened trade restrictions.

No. 2

Harold Simmons, 81, owner of Contran Corp., a Dallas-based conglomerate worth an estimated $9 billion that specializes in metals and chemical production and waste management.

Total: $16 million

Simmons is a longtime backer of GOP and conservative causes. He has donated $16 million to the party's efforts this year, including more than $11million to American Crossroads and $800,000 to Restore Our Future. Simmons also gave $2.2 million to Super PACs backing former GOP presidential candidates Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. He also owns a majority stake in Valhi Inc., a Texas-based waste management company, and could benefit from a proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule change that would allow the company's Texas facility to store spent uranium from nuclear power plants.

No. 3

Bob J. Perry, 80, head of a Houston real estate empire worth an estimated $650 million.

Total: $15.3 million

Perry has given about $15.3million to aid the Romney campaign and allied causes so far this election season. Long active in Texas and national GOP politics, Perry donated nearly $9 million to Restore Our Future and a total of $6.5 million to American Crossroads. Before backing Romney this year, Perry gave $100,000 to the super PAC backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry (no relation).

No. 4

Robert Rowling, 58, head of Dallas-based TRT Holdings.

Total: $4.1 million

Rowling has given at least $4.1 million to Republican Party and candidates this election. Most of his donations, $4 million, went to Rove's American Crossroads, both through personal donations and through his firm. Rowling also has given $100,000 to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future super PAC. Rowling's holdings are worth an estimated $4.8 billion and include Omni Hotels, Gold's Gym and Tana Exploration, his family's oil company.

No. 5

William Koch, 72, an industrialist whose South Florida-based energy and mining conglomerate is worth an estimated $4 billion.

Total: $3 million

Koch has given $3 million to the Restore Our Future, including a $250,000 personal donation and $2.75 million through his corporation, Oxbow Carbon LLC, and a subsidiary, Huron Carbon. Unlike his brothers, who are longtime supporters of Republican and conservative causes, Bill Koch has funded both GOP and Democratic Party candidates in the past. Koch's corporate interests have repeatedly battled against what company officials have decried as government interference. Oxbow spent $570,000 last year on lobbying in Washington, mostly aimed at mining, safety issues and climate change.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Lost the Vote? Deny the Money

At a time when the economy is still reeling from the downturn, House Republicans released a spending bill that would severely cut the budget of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which would keep it from regulating potentially toxic swaps and other derivatives. It refused to give the Securities and Exchange Commission the extra money it needs to carry out the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

And the bill would cripple the Internal Revenue Service, limiting its ability to detect tax avoidance, particularly by businesses and the wealthy. (The I.R.S. cut, designed to impede the agency’s role in health care reform, will inevitably increase the deficit.)

The proposed cuts are the latest in a long series of efforts by Republicans to keep the government from tempering even the most economically dangerous desires of business. Having failed to prevent the enactment of Dodd-Frank and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they are imposing their will with what may be their most effective weapon — choking off the air supply of regulators by limiting the money they can spend. These agencies had already been hesitant to impose a real crackdown; the cuts will make the situation worse.

The appropriations bills will have to be negotiated with the Senate, but House leaders have often shown a willingness to let agencies and even the entire government shut down if such negotiations do not go their way.

With 710 employees, the C.F.T.C. staff is barely big enough for its current responsibilities, let alone its new mission under Dodd-Frank to oversee the huge over-the-counter swaps market. Its budget is $205 million, which President Obama proposed increasing to $308 million for 2013 to deal with swaps. The House Appropriations Committee has proposed slashing next year’s budget to $180 million.

The agency’s chairman, Gary Gensler, said: “The result of the House bill is to effectively put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public, by significantly underfunding the agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives — the same complex financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.”

As Mr. Gensler pointed out, the market in swaps, at $300 trillion, is eight times larger than the futures market his agency has been regulating, and yet the House wants to cut the agency’s budget significantly. The House committee chairman, Harold Rogers, said the agency should return to its “core duties,” a statement that brazenly ignores a new set of duties Congress put on the books.

The securities industry has already gone to federal court to prevent the C.F.T.C. from imposing limits on commodities trading that can lead to excessive speculation, which can drive up the price of oil and other goods. With good friends on the Appropriations Committee, however, the industry may not even need a favorable court ruling.

For the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose role protecting investors was also enhanced by the reform law, the House provided only an extra $50 million (far less than the $245 million increase requested by the president) but limited the money to technology expenses. None of it can pay for new watchdog employees. The committee is clearly listening to Wall Street lobbyists who do not want the agency to enforce planned new regulations on money-market mutual funds.

The I.R.S. said it needed $945 million more in 2013 to make sure people have health insurance beginning in 2014, and to keep up with tax cheats. (It already cut its staff by 5,000 last year.) The House provided none of that increase. It is hard to believe that Republicans are serious about reducing the deficit if they will not let the government’s revenue agency do its job.

A few weeks ago, JPMorgan Chase, a too-big-to-fail bank, lost at least $3 billion trading in derivatives. Regulators might have halted that if Dodd-Frank were fully in place. The Republican response is to hobble the regulators even further — an invitation to another financial disaster.

View the original article here

Republicans', Tea Party's Love of Money is Threatening America's Existence (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., put forth a bill in the Senate on Monday that calls for "shared sacrifice" by millionaires, according to Real Clear Politics. This comes while the still ongoing debt ceiling talks have yet to produce a deal to keep America from defaulting on its debts after August 2.

President Barack Obama continues to bend over backwards to appease the Republicans and tea partiers, proposing deeper cuts to social programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which would affect hospitals and beneficiaries, according to the Daily Mail. This while chief financial officers of S&P 500 companies saw in 2010 a 19 percent increase in pay to a median average of $2.9 million while American families' median income has fallen $2,500 per year over the last 10 years as stated in the "shared sacrifice" Senate bill.

Yet Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner continually spout public rhetoric against any tax increases, such as that it would make a bipartisan debt limit summit between Congress and Obama "fruitless," even as these same people demand more and more spending cuts, according to UPI.

The Republican and tea party philosophy is one that perversely prefers seeing this country go over a cliff financially (and taking the world with it) than see those who can afford to pay more in taxes pay even just a dollar more of out their precious piles of loot. What is it about money and making sure that rich people get and keep all they can get that is the cornerstone of a conservative philosophy that also likes to espouse Christian values? This despite the biblical warning by Jesus about the "deceitfulness of wealth" that has poisoned the thinking of many of our lawmakers to the point of obsession and delusion.

If a deal on the debt ceiling isn't reached on or before Aug. 2, the responsibility will rest solely with many Republicans and tea partiers, whose greed, selfishness, disdain of the non-rich, and contempt for the founding principles of this nation based on compromise, will threaten the very existence of the America they claim to be so patriotic about.

View the original article here

Will Obama Crush GOP Rivals in the 2012 Money Race? (The Atlantic Wire)

Today the 2012 candidates will be releasing the totals of how much money they raised in the second quarter of this year, and the numbers will clarify how each one is faring in the race. Jon Huntsman released his fundraising total Thursday--$4.1 million after only nine days as an official candidate. But about half of it came from his own bank account, The Salt Lake Tribune's Thomas Burr reports. Meanwhile, President Obama is expected to far outpace the Republicans competing to replace him. He attended two fundraisers Thursday night in a last-minute push to blow then-President Bush's record for an off-year election, set in 2003 with $50.1 million. Obama's campaign was aiming for $60 million; early Friday morning it boasted on Twitter that it received donations from 493,697 people.

After Mitt Romney raised $10.5 million in a single day in May, some expected him to come close to the fundraising record set by George W. Bush in 1999, when he raised $36.2 million. But Romney's team has been working to lower expectations. Reuters' Kim Dixon reports that Romney raised between $15 million and $20 million--less than he raised in the first quarter of 2007, even though he's widely viewed as the frontrunner.

Related: A Guide to Properly Insulting the 2012 GOP Candidates

Tim Pawlenty raised less than $5 million, The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore reports, with some of that money slated for use in the general election, so Pawlenty can't use it in the primaries. Pawlenty's campaign has been struggling, and a poor fundraising total won't help.  The Washington Post's Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza, who call this day "Christmas in July for political nerds," note that in 2007, second-tier Democrats raised more than Pawlenty reportedly has--Bil Richardson pulled in $6 million, for example, and Chris Dodd raised $4 million. "But the more important question," Blake and Cillizza write, "is whether [Pawlenty's] outraised by Reps. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann--or even... Huntsman."

Related: First GOP Debate with Recognizable Candidates Will Be on June 13

Politico's Glenn Thrush and Carrie Budoff Brown report that Obama's "hypercompetitive" campaign staff hopes to crush them all. Obama raised $745 million in 2008, and today offers "the first true test of his grassroots prowess and an early indicator of whether any 2008 pixie dust still sticks to a battle-scarred president." Democratic sources tell Politico that Obama will easily meet the $60 million goal, and maybe even surpass it. But if he doesn't, it would be "a seismic, if not quite Greek default-level, event."

Related: Ron Paul Raised $1 Million Overnight

Want to add to this story? Open Wire.

View the original article here

Top GOP fundraiser: 'There's not too much money in politics' (The Christian Science Monitor)

Washington – Is politics awash with too much money?

Mike Duncan, chairman of American Crossroads, doesn't think so. His group, which solicits money to spend on behalf of conservative politicians, aims to raise $120 million to support GOP candidates in the 2012 election.

“There is not too much money in politics,” Mr. Duncan said Friday, in defense of his group's goal.

IN PICTURES: Will these Republicans run in 2012?

It is a matter of context, Duncan said at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast with reporters. "Our $120 million is in relation to a couple billion [dollars] on the other side.... We will probably be outspent as a party in this election.â€

In 2008, the Obama campaign raised $750 million. The Obama team is expected to spend more than that trying to get the president reelected in 2012.

American Crossroads, a Republican-backed independent group, was launched by Karl Rove, President Bush's former political adviser, among others. Mr. Rove acted after a 2010 Supreme Court decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, made it permissible for "super PACs" to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions, as long as the donors are disclosed and the groups do not coordinate their spending with federal candidates.

The $120 million goal includes funds that would be raised by American Crossroads, a tax-exempt 527 organization under Internal Revenue Service rules, and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)4 group. Under the law, Crossroads GPS is not required to disclose donors' names to the public.

Crossroads President and CEO Steven Law said labor unions reported spending $400 million in support of Democratic candidates in the 2008 election. He expects similar spending by labor groups in 2012. Of his organization’s $120 million goal, Mr. Law said: “We are going to need every penny of it to have a chance of keeping up with the much larger dollars that we expect to be poured in by the left.”

IN PICTURES: Will these Republicans run in 2012?

View the original article here

Bachmann Has Money, Name; Can She Avoid Being Labeled a Nut? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Michele Bachmann for president? This is the hope of the Republican representative from Minnesota -- if she can persuade the voters and the GOP to give her the nomination. The candidate's biography and her political connections present the electorate and party with a choice that is anything but clear-cut.

Take, for example, her ability to find funding. Terming it "fundraising prowess," the Washington Post has to grudgingly admire her ability to raise $13.5 million during the election cycle spanning 2009 to 2010. In spite of then-spotty name recognition, she quickly showed that she could outspend even the more well-known competitors.

Compare this to John Boehner's $9.8 million, and it is clear that Bachmann finds deep pockets easily -- recession or not.

Even more impressive is the fact that she managed to get this much money primarily from small donors -- the $200 and under crowd -- which bodes well for a strong grassroots effort. While any Republican candidate for highest office -- once nominated -- can count on the corporate donor, it is the high number of contributing voters who make her an attractive choice for rallying the base.

Note also her founding of the Tea Party Caucus. Due to the somewhat uneasy alliance between the Republicans and the Tea Party, she is the perfect middle of the road candidate, with one foot firmly in one camp and the other foot in the other.

Name recognition is another strong advantage for this would-be candidate. Gallup shows that Bachmann has a 62 percent margin of name recognition, which places her behind Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin (who is not running yet). She ranks third in positive intensity with 18 percent, which places her just barely behind Romney's 19 percent.

While these advantages might have some in the GOP waving the "Michele Bachmann for President 2012" signs, this mirth is premature.

The very Gallup poll that shows her as a viable candidate also reveals her to be a permanent second fiddle to Romney, who is positioning himself ahead in "strongly favorable" as well as "favorable" ratings. She beats him among voters who view Romney with an attitude that is "strongly unfavorable," which is not exactly the hallmark of a strong GOP candidate. Just by looking at the numbers, Bachmann is not the clear choice among pollsters or the Republicans they interview.

While Romney must contend with "Romney-care" and Newt Gingrich will forever carry "Cap and Trade" legislation with him, Bachmann has opined on Social Security and Medicare, which is not making many friends among voters. Think Progress explains that -- in 2010 -- Rep. Bachmann told a friendly crowd how anyone already in the system would remain there, but everyone else had to be weaned off.

It matters little if this approach makes dollars and therefore sense; it is so unpopular among Republicans and Democrats alike that the GOP will tread lightly to go against President Barack Obama with a conservative who cannot get the moderates, independents and seniors behind her.

Of course, the biggest problem she has is the very aspect that endears her to a small but loyal fringe: her view on the one-world government, according to Politico.

"Clearly this is a very bad direction because when you join the economic policy of different nations, it is one short step to joining political unity and then you would have literally, a one world government," Bachmann said. This is the type of buzzword a candidate must steer clear of, unless she or he will be considered as a bit of a conspiracy theorist (read: nut).

Clearly, it is too late for her to avoid this label.

View the original article here