SEE WHO IS CHOOSING YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT

Michael Bloomberg, left, and Sheldon Adelson were both big contributors to single-donor super PACs, according to ProPublica analysis. (John Moore/Getty Images, Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

This story was co-published with the Daily Beast.

The wealthiest Americans can fly on their own jets, live in gated compounds and watch movies in their own theaters.

More of them also are walling off their political contributions from other big and small players.

A growing number of political committees known as super PACs have become instruments of single donors, according to a ProPublica analysis of federal records. During the 2014 election cycle, $113 million – 16 percent of money raised by all super PACs – went to committees dominated by one donor. That was quadruple their 2012 share.

The rise of single-donor groups is a new example of how changes in campaign finance law are giving outsized influence to a handful of funders.

The trend may continue into 2016. Last week, National Review reported that Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination would be boosted not by one anointed super PAC but four, each controlled by a single donor or donor family.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling helped usher in the era of super PACs. Unlike traditional political action committees, the independent groups can accept donations of any dollar size as long as they don’t coordinate with the campaign of any candidate. Previously, much of the focus in big-money fundraising was on “bundlers” — volunteers who tap friends and associates for maximum individual contributions of $5,400 to a candidate, then deliver big lump sums directly to the campaigns. Former president George W. Bush awarded his most prolific bundlers special titles such as “Ranger” and “Pioneer.”

While bundling intensified the impact of wealthy donors on campaigns, the dollar limits and the need to join with others diluted the influence of any one person. With a super PAC, a donor can single-handedly push a narrower agenda. Last year, National Journal profiled one such donor – a California vineyard owner who helped start the trend by launching his own super PAC and becoming a power player in a Senate race across the country.

Beyond the single-donor groups, big donations are dominant across all kinds of super PACs, according to the analysis. Six-figure contributions from individuals or organizations accounted for almost 50 percent of all super PAC money raised during the last two cycles.

“We are anointing an aristocracy that’s getting a stronger and stronger grip on democracy,” said Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the influence of money on politics.

ProPublica’s analysis identified 59 super PACs that received at least 80 percent of their funding from one individual during the 2014 cycle. They raised a total of $113 million, compared with the $33 million raised by the 34 such groups that existed in 2012.

Donors who launch their own PACs are seeking more control over how their money is spent. And many have complained about the commissions that fundraising consultants take off the top of their donations to outside groups. But the move carries risks if the patron is new to the arena.

Top Single-Donor PACs in 2014

Super PAC Largest Donor Contributions Lean $ raised from largest donor % raised from largest donor
NextGen Climate Action Committee Thomas Steyer Democrat $66,900,000 86%
Independence USA PAC Michael Bloomberg Democrat $17,431,931 100%
Vote 2 Reduce Debt (V2RD) Kenneth Davis Jr. Republican $2,892,526 97%
Values Are Vital Ronald Firman Republican $2,148,300 80%
CE Action Committee Thomas Steyer Democrat $1,825,000 92%
Liberty Principles PAC Inc* Richard Uihlein Republican $1,780,000 100%
Americans For Progressive Action Thomas Jordan Republican $1,700,000 100%
Americans For Common Sense (AFCS) Angelo Tsakopoulos Republican $1,347,000 98%
American Principles Fund Sean Fieler Republican $1,138,724 84%
CounterPAC Jim Greer Republican $852,123 91%
Americas PAC Richard Uihlein Republican $670,000 89%
New Hampshire Priorities Peter Taul Republican $562,000 88%
American Alliance Sheldon Adelson Republican $500,000 86%
Our America Fund Richard Uihlein Republican $500,000 97%
Character Counts Political Action Committee Gary Davis Republican $445,000 100%
Space PAC Martine Rothblatt Democrat $425,000 99%
Kansans For Responsible Government Willis Hartman Republican $285,100 97%
Protect The Harvest Political Action Committee Forrest Lucas Democrat $250,000 94%
US Jobs Council Robert Mercer Republican $200,000 91%
Spirit Of Democracy America Charles Munger Jr. Republican $149,375 82%

* Uihlein provided virtually all funding eligible for federal races during the 2014 cycle. Liberty Principles received significant contributions from other donors for state and local races in Illinois, which was the group’s focus.

Source: ProPublica analysis

In one cautionary tale, a reclusive 89-year-old Texas oilman with no political experience launched Vote2ReduceDebt, one of the nation’s highest-spending conservative super PACs. A ProPublica investigation found that much of the donor’s millions went to entities run by the group’s consultants or their close associates. The super PAC imploded as principals traded allegations including self-dealing, faked campaign events and a plot to siphon the PAC’s money to a reality TV show.

Bill Burton, a former Obama administration official who helped found Priorities USA, the juggernaut super PAC affiliated with the president’s reelection campaign, said he expects donors to face more problems if they continue to go it alone.

“One of two things is going to happen,” he said. “We will either see widespread flaunting of coordination rules or we will see some pretty spectacular failures to the tune of millions of dollars.”

The single-donor super PACs identified by ProPublica span the political spectrum. Among the top conservative donors were Richard Uihlein, a packaging supplies businessman, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spent heavily on both sides but leaned Democrat. Hedge fund titan Tom Steyer dominated on the left.

In 2012 the largest single-donor super PAC was former TD Ameritrade CEO Joe Ricketts’ Ending Spending Action Fund, which raised over $14 million, 89 percent of which came from Ricketts. It was the ninth-largest super PAC by spending. In 2014 Steyer’s Nextgen Climate Action was the largest super PAC, raising almost $78 million, 85 percent from Steyer. (Steyer’s wife, Kat Taylor, is a member of ProPublica’s board of directors, and the couple has donated to ProPublica.)

In addition to the super PACs dominated by a single individual, dozens more received the great majority of their funding from one corporation, labor group or advocacy organization. In 2014, those PACs represented 8.6 percent of super-PAC fundraising.

PACs dominated by one donor could run afoul of disclosure laws, according to Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission. Under the rules, political ads must include disclosures about who funded them. Noble said election law would require groups funded by one person to list that donor’s name, not just the name of the PAC – though he couldn’t recall the FEC addressing such a case.

Naming the super PAC instead of the donor in the ad, Noble said, also allows the groups to delay disclosing where their money comes from until the next FEC filing date – potentially weeks after the ad runs.

“It defeats the purpose of the law to allow someone to hide behind a super PAC if they are the only funder,” Noble said.

“They want to make it more authoritative, like there’s more support. It looks better to say the ad is from Americans for Good Government than from John Smith… That just makes a mockery of the law.”

Help us investigate: Have a tip about campaign finance? Email [email protected].

Related stories: For more coverage of campaign finance, read ProPublica’s previous reporting on Super PAC Men, secret donors and gaps in campaign finance rules.

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
taxSlave
taxSlave

Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.

H. L. Mencken

IndenturedServant

Well I see our problem……..there are no Libertarian Super PAC’s on that list. Get a few of them and we’ll be right as rain!

Zarathustra

I guess there is a bit of justice in that Sheldon Adelson is one ugly motherfucker.

robert h siddell jr
robert h siddell jr

Peanuts compared to the money the government throws at welfare for votes.

Llpoh

Seems to me that overseas governments are buying Hillary. Also what robert said

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

All this shit should be illegal as well as “lobbying” and the “revolving door” between gov/biz.

How we put a stake through it’s heart, I have no idea, but shouldn’t we be discussing tactics or strategy instead of bitching/moaning about it?

That goes for a long list of problems in our country. Lots of pissing and whining. lots of agreement that things are fucked up and shit, but not a lot of action.

Admin you should do a piece on this. I bet ti would achieve wide circulation.

Llpoh

Westcoaster – it would take an amendment to the Constitution. This stuff is protected by free speech clause.

IndenturedServant

Llpoh says:
“Westcoaster – it would take an amendment to the Constitution. This stuff is protected by free speech clause.”

Agreed. However, we could restrict lobbyists to a 3’x3′ Free Speech Zone directly down wind of the nastiest sewer plant or in the middle of the biggest hood rat infested ghetto in each state.

Brian
Brian

I think the Citizens United case was wrong in that, it was saying that an artificial entity (corporation, union, etc) are a “Person” thereby giving them protection under the 1st amendment. An artificial entity created by a grant of privilege from the government should not be given the same rights as a natural person who eventually dies of old age. Artificial entities can exist indefinitely, giving them unfair advantages that a natural person can never compete with. I agree the constitution needs to reflect this disparity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies_in_the_United_States

starfcker
starfcker

Brian is absolutely correct. The corruption of the supreme court is like everything else, it can change. Best thing is roberts is probably a short timer, he don’t like the pay, and he’s got some serious health issues that could pop back up at any time.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

No, Brian is absolutely wrong. Here are some other “artificial entities” which, under Brian’s censorious regime could be stifled: the New York Times, Inc., Simon and Schuster, Inc., Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc. , as well as every other broadcast and media company. We can bemoan the influence of Adelson (and I do), but ultimately all his money can do is buy ads. How can you ban ads funded by an Adelson while tolerating what are effectively in-kind contributions from the media that unceasingly promote the progressive agenda? If you watched prime time TV, you’d think 50% of the country is gay. There’s actually a show called “Madam Secretary” where Tea Leoni plays a Hillary character (albeit a hot one), for the primary purpose of portraying Hillary in a favorable light and readying the country for that evil bitch to become president. How can you can ban Citizens United from showing a movie (you do remember that that’s what it was about, right?) without banning Michael Moore’s Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc. from showing Fahrenheit 9-11 during the 2004 election? You can’t. How can you ban a corporation from running a full page ad in the NY Times without also censoring the Times itself? Do you want a world where freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own a press? Fine. You ban, say, GE from paying for ads on TV and they’ll just buy an entire network (MSNBC, anyone?) and air their political philosophy 24/7. There are at least two consolations for the system as it is: 1) Adelson is balanced by Soros and the Kochs are balanced by Steyer and 2) we’re perfectly capable of assessing the situation here and elsewhere and rejecting those candidates who kiss neocon ass. Lastly, as much as I lament the neocon influence on the Republican Party, the neocons wouldn’t be determinative of it weren’t for the evangelical Christians following the likes of John Hagee, who make Zionist extremism a prerequisite for salvation. Look at that bogus schtick that Cruz is playing. They eat that shit up down there in Texas.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

PS. “Campaign finance limitations” are like Obamacare – taking a fucked up situation and making it much much worse. Try to imagine the regulatory regime that would arise to stifle speech from any agglomeration of individuals (“artificial entities” as Brian put it), keeping in mind that those entities include things like the Sierra Club (a corporation), or put another way, The People, peaceably assembled, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. If you don’t like things the way they are now, you’re REALLY not going to like it when the government is in charge of picking and choosing “artificial entities”, tolerating speech from some of them while forbidding speech from others.

flash
flash

The Hyksos capture Pharaoh’s Mother Egypt though influence ,wealth , [then] modern technology and subterfuge.

“By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of gods… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt and always leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions”

1st-century AD historian Josephus Flavius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.-
Winston Churchill

“If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree. ”
― Michael Crichton

robert h siddell jr
robert h siddell jr

Ok guys but money and porno are a lot of things per se but they are not speech and a business is not a person (one day TPTB will get them the vote). Amendments should make things perfectly clear and not give the politicians and lawyer bastards an inch to wiggle in so they can turn wine into water etc and screw We The People. Make sure to state the POTUS never had Executive Orders and never will and Congress has the power to slap the shit out of him and the SCOTUS. Vaya con Dios. . .

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading