From the Texas Tribune: School voucher supporter gave Gov. Greg Abbott $6 million in December

An example of campaign contributions and special interests.

- Click here for the article. 

Gov. Greg Abbott received a $6 million campaign contribution last month, which his campaign is calling the “largest single donation in Texas history.”

The check came from Jeff Yass, a national Republican megadonor whose priority issues include school vouchers. Abbott spent 2023 unsuccessfully pushing for a voucher program and is now targeting state House Republicans in the March primary who thwarted his agenda.

Abbott accepted the $6 million donation — dated Dec. 18 — in a little-used account, suggesting he was setting it aside from funds raised for his reelection campaign.

Yass is a billionaire from Pennsylvania who is co-founder and managing director of the Philadelphia-based investment firm Susquehanna International Group. He is also a top proponent of “school choice,” or programs that allow parents to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private school costs.

Abbott has long been known as a fundraising powerhouse, but the $6 million contribution takes him to a new level. Abbott has previously made headlines for getting single donations of $1 million.

He raised $19 million total over the last six months.

Yass has been called the richest man in Pennsylvania, with an estimated net worth of nearly $29 billion, according to Forbes. His firm was an early investor in TikTok, the social media platform that Abbott banned on state phones and computers in 2022.

When it comes to politics, Yass has also been a multimillion-dollar donor to the Club for Growth, the national anti-tax group that has boosted Texas Republicans like U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Chip Roy of Austin.

__________

Who is Jeff Yass? 

Yass became a member of the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute in 2002 and now is a member of the executive advisory council. In 2015, Yass donated $2.3 million to a Super PAC supporting Rand Paul's presidential candidacy. In 2018 he donated $3.8 million to the Club for Growth, and $20.7 million in 2020.

Yass and his wife, Janine Coslett, are public supporters of school choice, with Coslett writing a 2017 opinion piece for The Washington Examiner in support of then-incoming Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos's views at school choice.

In November 2020, it was reported that Yass had donated $25.3 million, all to Republican candidates, and was one of the ten largest political donors in the US.

In March 2021, an investigation in Haaretz said that Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik were behind a large portion of the donations to the Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel.

In November 2021, he donated $5 million to the School Freedom Fund, a PAC that runs ads for Republican candidates running in the 2022 election cycle nationwide.

In June 2022 ProPublica claimed Yass has "avoided $1 billion in taxes" and is "pouring his money into campaigns to cut taxes and support election deniers".

__________

From Open Secrets: Contributions to Greg Abbott.

__________

Terminology: 

- campaign contribution
- megadonor
- school vouchers
- the March primary
- Club for Growth
- legislative priority
- AFC Victory Fund
- Super PAC

From Open Secrets: Obama-tied operatives and Biden supporters launch $60 million ‘dark money’ group

- Click here for the article.

A new “dark money” group is labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020.

The recently-launched Future Majority will spend up to $60 million to target voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio in the 2020 election, helping Democrats craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points, according to Politico.

The 501(c)(4) nonprofit, run by Democratic strategist Mark Riddle, is not required to disclose its donors. The group will reportedly “spend money through PACs,” potentially feeding a growing trend of dark money-funded super PACs spending to influence elections.

Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders.

The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.

With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.

The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.

Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.

The Wikileaks leaks

A handful anyway - not quite getting the media coverage they would if the Trump tape hadn't emerged.

- WikiLeaks hack reveals cozy relationship between Clinton campaign, super PAC.

A top attorney for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign sent a memo to campaign aides teaching them how to legally communicate with a pro-Clinton super PAC, emails released Monday by WikiLeaks show.

While Clinton has claimed her campaign has nothing to do with the super PAC Priorities USA, a leaked email from the personal account of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, suggests differently.

In the email, Clinton attorney Marc Elias outlined what is basically a strategy for steering large campaign donors to the super PAC without breaking the law.

- Hillary Clinton transcripts: WikiLeaks posts apparent excerpts from private Wall Street speeches.

Wikileaks has dumped thousands of emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which includes apparent excerpts from Ms Clinton’s paid, closed-door speeches to Wall Street executives after leaving her position as Secretary of State.

In the excerpts, flagged in a 25 January email, Ms Clinton apparently suggested that Wall Street insiders were best qualified to regulate the banking industry and also included her apparent admission of the need for money from banking executives for political fundraising.

The group posted more than 2,000 emails on Friday evening, claiming they came from an email account belonging to Mr Podesta. Wikileaks promised to continue publishing emails from a trove of more than 50,000 emails obtained from a hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) this year.

- Search the emails yourself here.

From the Washington Post: How 10 mega-donors already helped pour a record $1.1 billion into super PACs

More support for the argument that we are more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

- Click here for the article.

Super PACs seeking to influence the 2016 elections have collected more than $1 billion, a record haul driven by jumbo-sized contributions from rich donors on both sides of the aisle.

Just 10 mega-donor individuals and couples contributed nearly 20 percent of the $1.1 billion raised by super PACs by the end of August, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. The total exceeds the $853 million that super PACs collected in the entire 2012 cycle.

In a reflection of how once-reluctant Democrats have fully embraced the big-money system, the top givers were split roughly equally along party lines, with five Republicans, four Democrats and one independent, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.
On the left, large check writers have pumped millions into Priorities USA Action, the top super PAC allied with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to demonstrate her independence from her wealthy supporters.

On the Republican side, the big money has largely flowed into super PACs working to keep GOP control of the Senate rather than to the muddled collection of competing groups supporting presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Together, super PACs seeking to sway the White House and congressional races have pumped more than $674 million into TV ads and other outreach through September, filings show. By the end of the 2012 elections, such groups had spent $608 million.
The figures illustrate how American campaigns have been reordered by the ability to give unlimited sums to political committees. In the six years since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision created new paths for massive contributions to flow into elections, a tiny sliver of donors with immense financial capacity have rushed to participate.

What is an "independent expenditure?"

It's what makes a PAC different than a Super PAC. The expenditures are independent of the campaigns of the candidates they support and its all the Super PAC can spend. Super PACs are more accurately called "independent expenditure-only committees." But the expenditures are limitless, which explains their popularity. The problems is determining if the expenditures are in fact independent - if they are not coordinated.

This link in Ballotpedia helps explain how this is done: Click here for detail.

Donald Trump and the Super PACs

Some are for him. Some are not.

Great America PAC:

A pro-Donald Trump super PAC is launching a new spot on Monday citing the Orlando attacks to bolster Trump's credentials as a possible commander-in-chief.

Great America PAC, one of the earlier pro-Trump groups to mobilize on his behalf, also plans to announce that it raised about $1 million in May, Eric Beach, the group's finance head told CNN. The super PAC also collected another $1.3 million in commitments since June 1, he said, with an expectation it will raise more than $2 million this month.

The group is one of several pro-Trump super PACs ramping up its fundraising and advertising in an effort to become the top outside organization backing the presumptive Republican nominee 

"The goal of a super PAC in this election cycle is to make sure Donald Trump has the necessary resources in the swing states," said Eric Beach, the group's finance head. "We have a sound strategy to win those states."

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands:

He’s been pummeled on policy and his pugnacious stump speeches but now Donald Trump faces attack ads focusing on something altogether different – the size of his hands.

A super PAC titled "Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands" released a minute-long ad questioning whether or not the real estate mogul-turned-presumptive Republican presidential nominee would be able to serve as president with his "little hands."

A spokesman for the PAC said that the ad aired once on MSNBC in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia on Wednesday night during primetime. MSNBC did not immediately return ABC News' request for confirmation.

The Wall Street Journal has a more complete list here.

From the NYT: ‘Super PAC’ Backing Hillary Clinton Raised Largest Haul of the Year in May

A Super PAC in action:

- Click here for the article.

The main “super PAC” supporting Hillary Clinton raised $12.1 million in May, the group said on Monday — its largest haul of the year as Mrs. Clinton shifts from the Democratic presidential primary to a likely showdown with Donald J. Trump in the fall.
The group, Priorities USA Action, said it had entered June with over $50 million in cash on hand after securing more than $130 million in donations and commitments during the election cycle to date.

Priorities USA Action has reserved about $147 million in television, radio and digital platform spending across eight states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire.

“In the last few weeks Donald Trump accused President Obama of working with ISIS, took a victory lap following a national tragedy and mimed shooting someone at one of his events,” Guy Cecil, the group’s chief strategist, said in a statement, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “Priorities USA is not going to let this man anywhere near the White House because he is far too dangerous and divisive to ever be president of the United States.”

The efforts highlight the significant fund-raising and organizational advantages Mrs. Clinton and her allies enjoy against supporters of Mr. Trump, whose super PACs have yet to establish a meaningful footprint.

For more on Priorities USA Action:

- Open Secrets: Priorities USA Action.
- Politico: Here's how Hillary Clinton's allies plan to go after Trump.

- Mother Jones: Can Harold Ickes Make It Rain for Obama?

Super PACs in the news

We will be discussing these in some 2305 sections.


Here's a look at them in the wild:


- The Daily Caller: How Super PACs Are Being Used to Influence Republican Delegates.

- Portland Press Herald: Big money in politics: Super-rich donors flood super PAC coffers.- Daily Kos: 50 Mega Rich Donors give 41% of all Super PAC money.
- Huffington Post: How Super Are Super PACs?
- Open Secrets: Who’s Who in the World of Super PACs?

What is a Super PAC anyway?

Here's a definition from Open Secrets.

- Click here for it.

Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

For more:

- Super PACs Exaplained.
- When Super PACs Attack.
- Are Super PACs Harming U.S. Politics?

From the Washington Post: Political parties go after million-dollar donors in wake of looser rules

More on the current state of money in the 2016 campaign. Parties are trying to catch up with SuperPACs.

- Click here for the story. 

The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue ­million-dollar donors with zeal.

Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to $1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about $1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.

In return, elite donors are being promised perks such as exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the nominating conventions and special dinners organized by contribution rank at this month’s RNC finance committee gala.

The new donor packages mark the latest major erosion of campaign finance limits and are reminiscent of the 1990s, when the parties were flush with huge “soft money” contributions from rich backers and corporations. The new push also further elevates the uber-wealthy at a time when independent big-money groups known as super PACs are dominating the 2016 presidential race.

Catching up on Super PACs in the 2106 Campaign

Some background for Fall 2305 students who might want to write about the impact of Super PACs in the campaign. You might want to start here: Test your money-in-politics IQ. Have some fun with this - see what you know.

- Super PAC doppelgangers eclipse candidates in campaign money chase. Super PACs may be becoming more important than the actual campaigns of presidential candidates.

- 2015 fundraising by super PACs versus candidates. Evidence backing up the previous story.

- Billionaires Put Their Stamp on 2016 Presidential Campaigns. This is behind a paywall, but it's just more efficient to seek donations from billionaires. Mere millionaires need not apply.

- Perry super PAC head walks a ‘bright line’ - The author points out that federal enforcement of campaign finance laws have weakened, which has emboldened Super PACs to take legal risks. Super PACs are not supposed to work in sync with official campaigns, but there are ways they can work together discretely.

- Pro-Bush super PAC spending $10M-plus on initial TV campaign. The Super PAC is called Right to Rise.  

- Democrats far behind GOP in raising money for '16 super PACs. But there are a lot more of them - that might explain it.

- News Guide: Super PAC backing Cruz gets $10 million donation. One check matches the amount of money raised in three months of ordinary donations.

- Group backing Clinton gets $1M from untraceable donors. An increasingly common problem - donors are finding ways to cover their tracks.

I'll post more on Super PACs themselves, but here's info on the subject so you can familiarize yourself with them:

- Wikipedia: Super PACs.
- Open Secrets: Super PACs.
- What Is a Super PAC? A Short History.

Keeping track of the 2016 money trail

For our occasional look at the subject.

The National Journal: How To Win Friends And Influence Elections.

This provides a breakdown of the range of potential sources of money.

NBC News: The 2016 Money Chase: Everything You Need to Know.

This lists which organizations are allied with which candidates. 

American Opportunity Alliance

The previous story mentions this group. There's not an awful lot on them at the moment - kinda like the Texas Future Business Alliance mentioned below.

Note that they will be pushing a climate change, gay rights, immigration reform agenda. Very different than what the Tea Party and the recent Republican Party has stood for - certainly what the Texas Republican Party stands for.

Grab the popcorn, this will be fun to watch. There are two story lines that stick out to me. One is the impact that these groups are having within the Republican Party - that's the immediate issues - the send is what long term impact they are having on parties as vital components of the governing system.

This is about all I found so far on the American Opportunity Alliance. The story mentions similar groups. It also points out that there is tremendous fighting between the groups - which, having read Federalist #10, we should see as no surprise.

- The Age of the Single-Issue, Mega-Donor Political Party Has Arrived.

A California environmental activist hopes to raise $100 million to elect politicians who will fight climate change. A center-right Republican is forming a PAC of "mega-donors" who will back Republicans that support gay marriage and immigration reform. With spending rules and political norms loosened, wealthy Americans are adding their own circles to America's political Venn diagram.

Environmentalist / billionaire Tom Steyer has already committed $50 million to the 2014 elections and is hoping to raise $50 million more. As The New York Times' Nicholas Confessore reports, his focus is simple: "pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers." His PAC, NextGen Climate Action, will target Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who's facing an uphill reelection campaign in a state that will be at the forefront of higher sea levels from climate change. But his PAC will also consider going after Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, whose support for the fossil fuel industry and tough reelection fight has made her one of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate.

A little bit on the other side of the Democratic-Republican dividing line is a new PAC organized by New York billionaire Paul Singer. According to Politico, he's pulling donors together to try and push the Republican party to the left — by backing candidates who share his views on issues like gay marriage. Unlike NextGen, Singer's group — American Opportunity Alliance — "is more donor-centric, focusing on comparing notes about one another’s political projects and funneling limited hard-money contributions effectively." But the end result is the same: get people elected who adhere to the group's specific party platform.

From Politico: Exclusive: Mega-donors plan GOP war council

This builds on a theme in previous posts - and it relates to discussions we have had about the efforts of the business sector to increase its influence within the Republican Party and push back against the party's Tea Party wing. It also touches on our ongoing look at the increased influence of money in politics, especially in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions that have opened the floodgates.

The word of the semester - so far - seems to be "mega-donor."

- Click here for the article.

A group of major GOP donors, led by New York billionaire Paul Singer, is quietly expanding its political footprint ahead of the midterm elections in an increasingly assertive effort to shape the direction of the Republican Party.

The operation was launched discreetly last year, with the previously unreported formation of a club called the American Opportunity Alliance to bring together some of the richest pro-business GOP donors in the country, several of whom share Singer’s support for gay rights, immigration reform and the state of Israel. Around the same time, Singer and his allies also formed a federal fundraising committee called Friends for an American Majority that raised big checks for a select list of the GOP’s most highly touted 2014 Senate hopefuls.

Those candidates are among the big names expected at a two-day retreat organized by the American Opportunity Alliance set for the last week of February at a swanky Colorado resort. The closed-door event — which is also expected to draw House Speaker John Boehner and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, according to Republicans familiar with the plans — is seen in GOP finance circles as a grand debut of sorts for Singer’s still-amorphous club.

. . . the list of big-name pols expected at the American Opportunity Alliance’s upcoming Colorado gathering highlights the influence that only a few big donors can command in the post-Citizens United era, when a small group of wealthy individuals can reorder elections with just a few huge checks. That new reality has shifted some of the power and control once maintained by the parties and their candidates to factions of major donors, like the libertarian-infused Koch network on the right or the Democracy Alliance club of major liberal donors on the left.

From The Houston Chronicle: Court ruling may see super PAC money rise in Texas

Building off a story below, limits on campaign funding have been overturned by a federal court - so we can expect more money to be pumped into political campaigns. We discussed the fact that this spending seems to be compromise the traditional role that political parties play in the electoral process. We may have more to say about this soon it seems.

Click here for the story:

In a state already known for sky-high political spending, so-called super PACS can now begin flexing their campaign muscle in Texas too, according to a published report Monday.

A recent federal court ruling essentially overturned Texas' ban on super PACs, political action committees that can spend lavishly as long as they aren't coordinating directly with political campaigns.

The Austin American Statesman reports (http://bit.ly/1gNfnUv ) that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in October makes Texas law consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which gave rise to super PACs.

The Texas decision makes corporate political spending easier. But more money isn't the only issue because corporations statewide could already spend unlimited amounts on their own political advocacy.

Now, lavish donations to outside groups may mean harder-edge political advertising since the groups won't be held to the same standards as candidates.

Ed Shack, a Texas election-law attorney, predicts there will be a proliferation of groups spreading their message independently.

"Every political consultant in the state will have a super PAC before long," Shack told the newspaper. "You're going to see a lot more spending that isn't coordinated with a particular candidate's campaign."

Until the appeals court decision, Texas political action committees — which spend money on behalf of a candidate or issue — weren't allowed to accept donations from corporations.

The ruling overturned the prohibition, tantamount to making all PACs "super." The groups still have to report where their money comes from, however, unlike 501(c)(4) nonprofits that critics say collect "dark money" from anonymous donors.

Craig McDonald, director of the nonprofit government watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, said the October appeals court ruling attracted little attention since it was expected following the Citizens United decision. He said similar court actions have affected political donations in Wisconsin, California and the District of Columbia.

McDonald also noted that super PACs can receive money from nonprofits that aren't required to disclose donors.

"If you're worried about money from dark corners going into politics, as we are, the future looks more bleak than rosy," he said.

After the Citizens United decision, the Texas Legislature removed the state's prohibition on corporate contributions to political candidates, but the ban on giving to PACs survived, according to the Gober Hilgers law firm.

Two years ago, the firm handled a lawsuit filed by Texans for Free Enterprise. It sued the Texas Ethics Commission, contending the state ban on corporate contributions to PACs was unconstitutional.

The appeals court agreed, noting Texans for Free Enterprise's "ability to speak is undoubtedly limited when it cannot raise money to pay for free speech."

From Politico: Last call for state parties?

We discussed state political parties in 2306 last week, and I mentioned that in our federal system states get to draft the rules that determine what parties look alike, which means that each state legislature has the greatest control over the parties. States provide the legal basis for parties. We mentioned that national parties - at best - try to reconcile differences between the states parties, but the later tend to be more powerful politically.

But Politico reports that not only are state parties are having trouble competing with SuperPACs for funds, the PACs are taking over some of the traditional functions performed by state and local parties - like organizing voters.

The article suggests that the reason is that limits on campaign spending by individuals and groups have been found to be unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. In 2305 we will be discussing the campaign financing and the Citizens United decision. One of the consequences appears to be that SuperPACs may now be able to challenge political parties as the dominant political entity in the nation.

Click here for the article:

State party officials across the country say the explosion of money into super PACs, nonprofit groups and presidential campaigns has made fundraising more difficult. And some of those outside groups are starting to take over the traditional local roles state parties play, spending big on voter contact and outreach operations.

The effect is candidates who can be more beholden to national organizations or single-issue groups rather than state party leaders. That’s leading to a change in candidates and their beliefs and the issues that come up in elections and statehouses.

The GOP takeover of North Carolina in 2010 and 2012, for example, was bankrolled largely by the network founded by GOP megadonors Charles and David Koch and primarily directed through the nonprofit Americans For Prosperity. AFP’s former chairman, Art Pope, now serves as North Carolina budget director.

In Texas, two Democratic outside groups have essentially built a party organization outside the official Texas Democratic Party. Several Obama campaign veterans are running the group Battleground Texas as a field and turnout operation, while the Lone Star Project is doing opposition research and tracking against Republicans.

There is a greater incentive now for individual donors with deep pockets to fund these groups, not the state party. Will this indirectly suppress voter participation by limiting the ability of parties to fulfill this traditional function?

Aside from the Citizens United case - which unleashed the amount of money that independent groups can change - campaign finance reform laws passed in 2002 removed a major source of funds that parties had access to - soft money:

Ironically, until Congress closed a key campaign finance loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul, most state parties were flush with cash.

The loophole allowed essentially unlimited funds known as soft money to be raised by the national political parties to be spent on party building activities and issue ads. Between 1992 and 2002, soft money fundraising for both parties skyrocketed — going from from $86 million to nearly $500 million. Much of that cash was spent through state and local party organizations.

In closing the soft-money loophole, the law created a complicated system of rules that state parties had to abide by when working on federal elections.

Under the rules, for example, state-party run phone banks for federal candidates had to be staffed only by volunteers. They could make calls only for presidential elections — not congressional races. Mail, campaign literature and get-out-the-vote operations around federal races were regulated by similarly strict rules, conditions and requirements regulating volunteer time, coordination with the national party and what kind of funds could be spent.

Those rules seem almost quaint now.

Proposals are being floated in Congress to rescind those rules - stay posted.

What is a 501(c)(4) organization?

Here's a good primer from the Washington Post. It answers basic questions about the case so far.

Summary info:

- A 501 (c)(4) is a subset of the groups that fit under the IRS's tax code for nonprofit groups. Wikipedia has a page detailing all of the 501(c) categories that exist. The 4th category is reserved for "Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees." These have proliferated since the Citizens United decision of 2010.


- Since they are supposed to be social welfare organizations, politics is not supposed to be their primary focus. They are to spend less than 50% of their money on politics. The trick is determining what that means. What is "politics" and what is "social welfare?" And who gets to make that determination?

- Many of the most groups most active in the recent election fell under this categorym including Crossroads GPS and Organizing for Action.

- The Center for Responsive Politics thes groups spent more than $300 million on the campaign. $263 million by conservative groups and $35 million by liberal groups. 501(c)(4)'s spend more on the campaign than super PACs by a 3-2 margin.

- A super PAC has to disclose its donors while a 501(C)(4) does not. This explains their appeal.

- Applications for these organizations doubled following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which allowed corporations and labor unions to spend as much money as they wish on elections.

- The IRS used key terms - like Tea Party - to flag certain groups it suspected of not qualifying as social welfare organizations.

- The Inspector General is set to release an audit of the process, and at least two House congressional committees are planning to investigate this.

The IRS audits the Tea Party

There's lots flying around on Friday's revelation that the IRS was auditing Tea Party groups that had applied for 501(c)4 status prior to the 2012 election.

It also applies to alot of what we will cover this class, including the organization of the bureaucracy and the way that decision are made within it, presidential power over the bureaucracy, and the murky status of the superPACs and other organizations involved in political activities without making it seem like they are really getting involved in political activities.

The purpose of the designation is to grant tax exempt status to social welfare organizations that "promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole." Political parties and PACs generally do not fit this bill.

The Washington Post broke the story that an internal audit is set to be released, click here for one of  the stories.

For a summary of various points about the story, click on Andrew Sullivan's post here.

There'll be lots more on this.

Will Citizens United destroy parties as we know them?

In Citizens United v FEC, the Supreme Court removed significant limits on money in politics by allowing corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want on campaigns -through SuperPACs, as long as it is not coordinated with a candidate or party.

This allows them to bypass parties however and become sole benefactors of specific candidates. Since parties traditionally perform this role, there are suspicions that the case may end up leading to the breakup of parties, since the may be irrelevant. Timothy Noah thinks this might be especially true of the Republican Party:

Super PACs have made it so easy for millionaires and billionaires to spend unlimited sums on behalf of a particular candidate that these groups are now routinely outspending Republican presidential primary campaigns. Indeed, to a remarkable extent, these oligarch-controlled super PACs are the primary campaign. And, while both parties can create super PACs, so far GOP super PACs are burying their Democratic counterparts. Of the top ten individuals funding super PACs, only one—Jeffrey Katzenberg—is a Democrat. 

Have renegades taken over the Republican Party?

Thomas Edsall - writing in the NYT - thinks so. Historically, Republican Party voters have been - in his words - compliant to the needs of the electorate, but no longer seems to be the case. The recent election in South Carolina, which generally votes for the eventual nominee, went with Newt Gingrich this time. He analyzes changes within the party, as well as the electoral system, that has led to this change.

The typical Republican primary voter is more white and evangelical than it has been in the past.

The rise of evangelicals might be the most significant change:

In an analysis of the contests so far, the Faith and Freedom Coalition found that evangelicals are now a majority, 50.53 percent, of all Republican presidential primary voters. The ascendance of the religious right has produced “the highest percentage recorded in a presidential nominating process, 4.29 million votes out of 8.49 million cast,” according to the coalition.