Links related to Dark Money and the Invisible Primary

Definitions of Dark Money: 


Open Secrets: Dark Money Basics: “Dark money” refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed.


Brennan Center for Justice: Dark Money: Citizens United created loopholes in campaign disclosure rules that have made so-called dark money — funds from groups that do not disclose their donors — disturbingly common. Powerful groups have poured more than $1 billion into federal elections since 2010, typically concentrating on the most competitive races.

Investopedia: Dark Money: What it is, How it Works, Examples: Dark money refers to political contributions received from donors whose identities are not disclosed. Dark money can have a significant influence on elections, particularly when used by “independent expenditure” group—commonly referred to as Super PACs—that are legally permitted to receive and spend an unlimited amount of contributions.

__________


Definitions of the Invisible, or Dark, Primary 


Wikipedia: Invisible primary: . . . the period between (1) the first well-known presidential candidates with strong political support networks showing interest in running for president and (2) demonstration of substantial public support by voters for them in primaries and caucuses. During the money primary candidates raise funds for the upcoming primary elections and attempt to garner support of political leaders and donors, as well as the party establishment. Fund raising numbers and opinion polls are used by the media to predict who the front runners for the nomination are. This is a crucial stage of a campaign for the presidency, as the initial frontrunners who raise the most money appear the strongest and will be able to raise even more money.


Political Dictionary: Invisible Primary: An invisible primary begins when a candidate formally announces their plans to run for office. It’s an opportunity to find out how much support they can gather before the actual primary race gets underway. In fact, the invisible primary can often make or break candidates – candidates who don’t get enough shows of support during the invisible primary often end up bowing out of the race, sometimes before the primary season even begins.

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.

From the San Antonio Express-News: 'Dark money' disclosure fight heading back to the Texas Legislature

An early indication of what might be on the legislative agenda come January;

- Click here for the article.

AUSTIN — A top House lawmaker who led the charge to require politically active nonprofits to reveal their donors, a lightning rod issue opposed by Gov. Greg Abbott, says he wants Texas voters to decide the issue at the ballot box.

State Rep. Byron Cook, a Republican from Corsicana who narrowly won re-election earlier this month, said he is planning to propose next legislative session an amendment to the state constitution on the issue of disclosing so-called "dark money" donors.

A proposal to prevent politically active nonprofits from shielding the identities of their donors ended up tanking a comprehensive ethics bill last year. The House added the disclosure requirement to the Legislature's biggest ethics measure of the session, but the amended proposal was rejected by Lt. Gov Dan Patrick and the Senate.

Given that backdrop, Cook's proposal already is being cast by campaign finance reformers as more than a long shot. It would require approval from two-thirds of lawmakers in both chambers before it could be placed on a ballot for Texas voters.

But it appears to be the only gambit available to skirt Abbott's veto pen for Cook and lawmakers pushing for political nonprofit disclosure. The governor does not have the power to nullify a joint resolution proposing amendments to the state constitution. 

"It's a priority bill for the state of Texas," Cook, the chairman of the powerful House State Affairs Committee, said in an interview. "If we don't help give transparency to this issue, there'll be no reason for any candidate to do anything other than set up vehicles to allow them to receive money anonymously."

Most politically active nonprofits are allowed to spend money to influence elections independent of candidates but do not have to reveal who is funding the efforts (527 groups are required to disclose donors). The nonprofits, mostly 501(c)4s, have argued their donor lists are constitutionally protected.

Campaign cash from politically active nonprofits that do not disclose donors represents just a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into Texas elections. Some lawmakers, including Cook, have warned that the growing number of groups spending anonymous campaign cash in state elections could eventually lead to a major scandal.

The topic has become the most divisive campaign finance issue for the Legislature going back to 2013, when former Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a dark money disclosure measure authored by Republican state Sen. Kel Seliger. Last year's debate ended in the complete collapse of an emergency item for Abbott: ethics reform.

After the legislative session ended, Abbott signaled clearly how the state's top leader views the issue.

"As a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, I wrote that laws like that are unconstitutional and I based that decision on United States Supreme Court decisions," Abbott said at a news conference last year. "It's important for legislators to not to try and pass laws that have already been ruled unconstitutional."

Cook said given the political climate at the Legislature he believes the next logical step is to take the issue to Texas voters.

Details of the proposal are still being worked out, he said, but it could draw from a bill he authored last year that required groups making independent expenditures of $25,000 or more to disclose the names of donors who give $2,000 or more.

"This is an extremely important issue and only becoming more and more topical, as more groups move toward secretly funding campaigns, which is going to undermine transparency," he said. "We should make a serious effort to make sure the public is aware of who is behind the message with respect to political campaigns."

However, even supporters of campaign finance reform are largely skeptical that Cook's initiative will gain traction. Craig McDonald, director of the left-leaning watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, said "there's too much political clout lined up against transparency in elections."

"Keeping attention on the exploding use of dark money is laudable," said McDonald. "Getting a disclosure amendment to the ballot in the face of active opposition from the governor and lieutenant governor is politically impossible."

Catching up on money in politics

Open Secrets lists the top donors here: 2016 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups.

They also have a section devoted to spending on the 2016 Presidential Race.

For recent news stories:

- Lobby firms reap benefits of an active Congress.

Many of the nation’s largest lobby firms saw a spike in revenue in 2015, driven by a more productive Congress and the continuing battles over environmental regulations, trade policy, taxes and health care. Seven of the 10 biggest lobby shops by revenue reported year-over-year gains in fees, according to year-end disclosure reports filed with the Senate on Wednesday. 

- Obama weighs whether to force federal contractors to reveal political spending.

President Obama is weighing whether to invoke his executive authority to force federal contractors to disclose political contributions they make to independent groups, according to individuals briefed on the matter. The proposed executive order would require corporations that currently have federal contracts to disclose what they spend on political campaign efforts, including money forwarded through trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other advocacy groups.

- The Secrets of Charles Koch’s Political Ascent.

In a recent round of interviews, Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and political patron, has been stressing that he only recently became involved in politics. As he put it in an interview with Megyn Kelly on October 15, “I’ve never been that fond of politics and only got dragged into it recently kicking and screaming.” But according to what appear to be two never-before-seen documents—a paper Charles wrote in 1976 and an unpublished history of Charles’ political evolution—Charles began planning his ambitious remaking of American politics 40 years ago, transitioning from libertarian ideologue to conservative power broker. For his new movement, which aimed to empower ultraconservatives like himself and radically change the way the U.S. government worked, he analyzed and then copied what he saw as the strengths of the John Birch Society, the extreme, right-wing anti-communist group to which he, his brother David and their father, Fred Koch, had belonged. Charles Koch might claim that his entry into politics is new, but from its secrecy to its methods of courting donors and recruiting students, the blueprint for the vast and powerful Koch donor network that we see today was drafted four decades ago.

- What is political ‘dark money’ — and is it bad?

Why are so many people upset about dark money in politics?

Campaign finance reform activists argue that voters should know who is funding political advertisements. Such information, they assert, is essential to voters’ ability to evaluate the merits of political messages — and to know if certain special interests may be trying to curry favor with politicians. Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of Democracy 21, for one, has said that “history makes clear that unlimited contributions and secret money are a formula for corruption.” Likewise, the Campaign Legal Center has called the emergence of dark money a “serious threat to our democracy.” In a portion of the controversial Citizens United decision, eight of the nine Supreme Court justices agreedthat disclosure of money in politics was important because “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

- A Banner Year for 'Dark Money' in Politics.

The 2016 presidential campaign not only will feature more money than any since Watergate, but also more secret money than the days when black satchels of illicit cash were passed around.

The so-called dark money, or contributions that don't have to be disclosed, topped more than $300 million in the 2012 presidential race, and some experts believe that the levels may be far higher this time. There also is a risk that foreign money could be surreptitiously funneled into the presidential campaign because it wouldn't have to be publicly disclosed.

This flood of cash is occurring thanks to a ruse that permits political advocacy groups to claim that they are principally social welfare agencies and thus tax exempt and not subject to disclosure. These organizations court interest groups and rich donors, some of whom want the influence that political money brings but not the public association. It's a win for the interest groups and the candidates; the public is kept in the dark.

In the news today ....

- Texas Speaker Joe Straus has two Tea Party affiliated challengers to his seat in the upcoming primary election. Straus represents the 121st district in the Texas House. Tea Party opponents , who think Straus is too liberal, have failed to defeat him in two previous primary challenges. They think he might be more vulnerable if he has to face two challengers since he might not win a majority and could defeated in a run-off with low turnout: See Straus faces two-candidate challenge from the far right in Republican primary.

- I still need to post items detailing the recent spending bill. It contains a variety of items (riders) related to non-spending issues including rules loosening campaign spending rules. Some allowing greater use of what is called dark money - dark because its source can;t be traced. This a road we've been heading down for decades: See: White House surrenders on 'dark money' regulation.

- Dark money is also becoming more influential in state races. States vary in their policies regarding transparency - Texas requires little. Most of the additional money spent on campaigns since the Citizens United decision removed many caps on expenditures has been through channels that do not require disclosure. Much of this spending on state races comes from groups located in other states, but the precise source is difficult to determine, and there are sufficient loopholes in place to continue to make them secret. See: 'Dark money' grows in politics even as states try to stop it.

- Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is continuing to shape the state panels by appointing people with more conservative bona-fides. This includes the Sunset Commission and the Legislative Budget Board. Among the recent appointees of the latter is area state senator Larry Taylor. See: Dan Patrick shows, through new panel picks, that he wants a more conservative Texas Senate.

- A common theme regarding the early race for the Republican nomination has been what impact Trump will have on the party and whether a division might emerge within it that leads to a third party run. Most previous analyses have looked at the possibility the Trump runs as a third party candidate is he looses the nomination. Here's a look at the possibility that a traditional Republican runs as a third party candidate if Trump wins the nomination. See: Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?

- Is Trump's campaign organization playing with fire? Lot's of Trump's activities are being performed by people that work in many of his businesses, which creates problems since these are to be treated as campaign expenses, meaning that they are to be reported as such. Trump appears to be testing the limits of campaign funding law. See: Trump’s reliance on business questioned.

From the San Antonio Express-News: Texas ‘dark money’ rule set for court fight ahead of primaries

Texas has a history of not only allowing money to flow freely through the political system, but secretly. Efforts are being made to change that, but there are similar efforts to derail those attempts. Here's the latest on that battle. Notice that everything is bogged down in the courts.

- Click here for the article.

Texas’ controversial “dark money” regulation, intended to bring some anonymous political spending out of the shadows, is facing renewed pressure from politically active nonprofits ahead of the 2016 election cycle.

Two groups are waging separate lawsuits against the Texas Ethics Commission to strike down the rule in an attempt to allow all 501(c)(4) nonprofits to continue keeping their donors secret during the upcoming state primaries in March — and beyond.

Meanwhile, the commission, aware that a federal judge will have the final word, has been working for months to amend the rule by tweaking what some of its members have described as “potential weaknesses” that could be exposed in court. The state’s top campaign finance regulator has even admitted that he’s not sure the rule will withstand scrutiny of a federal judge.

At issue: When and how the state can determine that a 501(c)(4) nonprofit should be regulated like a political action committee, which is required to disclose its sources of money.

501(c)(4) nonprofits are allowed to spend money in an election independent of candidates and do not have to reveal who is funding the efforts.

The commission last year passed a rule that would trigger PAC status and disclosure requirements for a politically active nonprofit if more than 25 percent of their total contributions or expenditures in a calendar year are used for electioneering.

The groups suing have said that Texas is trying to label them as PACs when their main purpose is not to support or oppose candidates. They’ve argued in court documents that the rule could impose a “chill” on their future election activity.

Both lawsuits were filed more than a year ago, but there’s been little action in either case.

For more:

- Ethics commission sets sights on ‘campaign in a box’
- Analysis: It's Not Bribery Unless They Say It's Bribery.

What is Dark Money?

Federal law has required that campaign contributions be disclosed since the passage of the 1910 Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The general idea is that voters should know who is funding a candidate's campaign. That tends to provide a good indication of what the candidate really stands for.
But contributors like to hide their contributions, and Congress does like to allow groups to be able to hide donors if their primary purpose is not politics and they principally want to educate the general population about the issues surrounding the campaign.

This creates an opportunity for clever people to avoid disclosure by calling themselves social welfare organizations and filing paperwork to the IRS stating such. These are the two categories that matter:

- Wikipedia: 501(c)(4) organizations.
- Wikipedia: 501(c)(6) organizations.

The increased use of these types of organizations as vehicles for campaign spending has led to the increase of what is called "dark money" since it is hidden, unregulated and growing fast.

For more:

- Wikipedia: Dark Money.
- Open Secrets: Political Nonprofits (Dark Money).
- Charles Koch Denies Dark Money Donations.
- Mother Jones: Follow the Dark Money.
- Newsweek: As Dark Money Floods U.S. Elections, Regulators Turn a Blind Eye.

For today's discussion in 2305 - 10/21/14

Supreme Court Will Consider Police Searches of Hotel Registries.
- Motel owners don't like a city ordinance that requires them to open up their books whenever the police want them to.

Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics: They Don’t Need Them.
- At least this year - 2016 might be different. Gerrymandering plays a role, as does the distribution of population.

Buying Your Vote: Dark Money and Big Data.

- More and more of what's spent on campaigns is hidden.

Political Polarization & Media Habits.
- Liberals and conservatives get their news from entirely different news sources.

From the Huffington Post: This Chart Shows How Little We Really Know About Where Political Money Comes From

The amount of money flowing into politics from undisclosed sources is increased. Most of these are from "social welfare organizations."

- Click here for the article.



As seems typical, the culprit is the changing legal landscape following the Citizens United decision of a few years back:

The initial spike in dark money spending took place in 2008, after the Supreme Court’s 2007 Wisconsin Right to Life ruling. That ruling freed nonprofit 501(c) organizations to make “issue ads” mentioning candidates -- as long as they didn’t directly call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

Another dark money spike took place after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling freed corporations, labor unions and nonprofit 501(c) organizations to spend political money directly calling for the election or defeat of a candidate. Both the Citizens United and the Wisconsin Right to Life allowed for unlimited spending.

“After Citizens United, voters are left more and more in the dark about who's funding campaigns,” said Robert Maguire, investigator for CRP. “It’s not a matter of free speech – it’s a matter of knowing who’s speaking.”

Dark money continued to flow freely in 2013, gearing up for the 2014 midterm elections. Conservative groups have already spent at least $15.8 million on issue ads to promote Republican candidates, according to an earlier HuffPost analysis. Americans for Prosperity, the nonprofit founded and funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, led all groups that year with at least $12.4 million spent on candidate-specific ads attacking Obamacare. Liberal dark money groups, meanwhile, spent at least $3.3 million on issue advocacy, mostly coming from the League of Conservation Voters.

From ProPublica: Buying Your Vote

ProPublica devotes an entire section of its website to story related to dark money and big data.

- Click here for it.

From Pro-Publica: The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs’ Cash into Politics and Made Millions

Still more on money in politics - this time who gets to profit from it. Take this as career advise:

- Click here for the story.

For a brief, giddy moment, Sean Noble—a little-known former aide to an Arizona congressman—became one of the most important people in American politics.

Plucked from obscurity by libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, Noble was tasked with distributing a torrent of political money raised by the Koch network, a complex web of nonprofits nicknamed the Kochtopus, into conservative causes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Noble handed out almost $137 million in 2012 alone -- all of it so-called dark money from unnamed donors -- from his perch atop the Center to Protect Patient Rights, a group run out of an Arizona post office box.

Much of it was channeled to obvious destinations: Groups supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for example.

But with Noble as ringmaster, Koch money also poured into efforts that didn’t surface until long after Election Day: To a political committee backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker against a recall attempt; to a group blaming President Obama for high gas prices; even to a legal challenge to Arizona’s redistricting plan.
. . . his story shows how the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling has given rise to a new breed of power brokers who control a growing pool of money raised in secret and spent to influence politics in ways that voters can’t always trace.

Much of Noble’s work in 2012 remained invisible to the public until the Center and dozens of other Koch-backed nonprofits released their tax returns late last year.

An examination of those tax returns, along with court records and filings with the Federal Election Commission, shows that the Center to Protect Patient Rights bent state election laws and federal tax rules governing how such groups are supposed to operate.

Millions of dollars the Center told the Internal Revenue Service it gave to other groups only for “tax exempt education and social welfare purposes” were actually spent on election ads and other political activities. Experts on nonprofit law said it’s the donor’s responsibility to follow up on grants if they were not spent as required.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Koch network’s money was Sean Noble himself, tax documents show. The Center paid three firms owned by Noble almost $24 million for consulting and other services in 2012—or more than $1 of every $6 it spent.

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."

Dark Money in Texas

The Houston Chronicle profiles an Austin lobbyist and attorney who is trying to persuade the Texas Ethics Commission to require that all campaign contributions are disclosed. He's issued a petition for rulemaking asking the agency to implement something the Texas governor has already vetoed.

The term "dark money" refers to campaign contributions that are not disclosed prior to voting. It exists simply because some individuals and organizations do not want other to know who they support. While some argue that this is an acceptable way for contributors to maintain their privacy, others argue that it invites corruption.

From the article:

“The purpose of my proposal is to eliminate ‘dark money’ from Texas elections by dragging it into the sunlight,” Bresnen wrote to acting Executive Director Natalia Luna Ashley. “Secret money influencing elections — the life blood of self governance — is intolerable as a matter of law and is against the public interest. The Commission should exercise its authority to do something about it.”

The issue of dark money has been a political lightning rod since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. That decision paved a path for outside groups like super PACs and 501(c)(4)s to raise and spend unlimited sums from corporations, labor groups and deep- pocketed individual donors.

And while both 501(c)(4)s and super PACs can accept unlimited sums of cash, only super PACs are required to identify donors.

As a result, super PACs regularly set up sister outfits in the form of a 501(c)(4)s to funnel money anonymously to candidates or to fund attack ads. That’s how they got the ominous title “dark money” groups.

In Texas, the issue hit home during the legislative session when Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a dark money disclosure bill that would have required politically active 501(c)4s to reveal contributors who give more than $1,000 to any dark money group that spends $25,000 or more on politicking.

That measure, sponsored by Sen. Kel Seliger and Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, was intended to require non-profit groups like Empower Texans to report some of its secret donors.

Bresnen’s petition from Tuesday takes aim again at Empower Texans and its president, Michael Quinn Sullivan, saying the “$372,000 in secret political money that Mike Sullivan used in the 2012 elections” was part of the reason he’s asking the commission to step in.

For additional detail:

- Wikipedia: Dark Money.
- opensecrets.org: New Dark Money Data Measures Groups' Politicization.
- opensecrets.org: The Shadow Money Trail.