Posted on 09/13/2004 3:30:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - Think you've got a right to know the names of the people paying for attack ads in a local congressional race?
Curious what the Sustainable World Corp. is and why it cares who the next U.S. president is?
Good luck.
These mysteries and plenty more are brought to you despite campaign finance reform.
This is the first presidential election since Congress tried to limit the influence of big contributors. While reformers can point to some successes, the highly touted effort has done little to tie the hands of wealthy donors, said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson.
"It just changed the course of their activity," Jillson said.
And in many ways, it's harder than ever to keep track of who's providing the cash that paves the way to victory in November.
Among the problems:
Independent political groups gained clout under the new rules. That's because they can take the multimillion-dollar donations that the parties no longer can. But these groups are sometimes hard to track, and they can take advantage of loopholes in the law that keep donors' names secret. Democrats have a big early lead in raising money through such groups, but Republicans are working to catch up.
Corporate executives, attorneys and people in other professions are finding it easier to bundle piles of cash for their favored candidates. Why? Because the maximum amount an individual can give a candidate doubled under the new rules.
Special interest groups that run many of the attack ads escaped the overhaul effort, and such ads continue clogging airwaves in states where the presidential race is tightest. A few wealthy Texans provided much of the initial funding for the highest-profile effort so far - Swift Boat Veterans For Truth's ads slamming Sen. John Kerry's record in Vietnam.
Why should average voters, who may never give money to candidates, care? Because in plenty of instances big donors have gained access, influence and government appointments.
"Wealthy people have a right to participate in politics," Jillson said, "but they don't have a right to control it."
---
Campaign finance reform was supposed to choke off much of the money flowing from wealthy donors to candidates' political parties.
The goal was to force those seeking office to make a greater effort to gather broad public support.
That's happened. President Bush and Kerry have used the Internet to raise tens of millions of dollars, much of that from donors giving a few hundred dollars or less. Boosted by those donations, each candidate has raked in more than $200 million, shattering contribution records.
But that's not the only reason.
Those hoping to buy favor with the candidates can still make their presence felt, thanks to a practice known as "bundling." They ask a bunch of their employees, friends or stockholders to give individual contributions that add up to a big amount of cash. Then they take credit for the fund raising.
In 2000, the Bush campaign turned bundling into an art form by creating a category of donors it dubbed Pioneers, people responsible for bringing in at least $100,000.
The new campaign finance rules make it easier to collect bigger pots of money because individuals can now give $2,000 to a candidate, instead of the old limit of $1,000.
How much difference has that made? Bush now has a category of givers called Rangers, who bring in at least $200,000. And Kerry has created his own classifications for givers who amass donations.
"The bundlers are the real new power brokers," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "I wouldn't be surprised to see some bundlers end up as ambassadors."
The increase in bundling is one example of the failure of the McCain-Feingold legislation, said campaign finance analyst Dwight Morris.
"Reform was not reform," said Morris, whose firm analyzes contribution data for the Star-Telegram. "All it did was actually increase the ability of people to throw money at the election."
---
Most Americans got their first exposure to an obscure part of the campaign finance machine through TV ads questioning Kerry's record of valor in Vietnam.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - the group that paid for the ads - is what's known as a 527. The title comes from the IRS tax code governing scores of committees created to influence elections.
Such groups were around the last time Americans picked a president. In fact, a 527 funded by Dallas businessman and GOP stalwart Sam Wyly was credited with helping torpedo Sen. John McCain's presidential bid with ads slamming his environmental record.
These groups have taken on added importance under the new rules. That's because they can still take unlimited contributions from all donors, while the political parties cannot.
The groups can work for or against a candidate, so long as they're not directly tied to the campaign or a political party. But most major 527 groups are run by operatives with historical ties to the candidates and parties.
Donors' names are supposed to be disclosed at regular reporting periods. But campaign finance experts worry that there are ways around the requirement and that the government isn't doing much to make sure the groups comply.
One of this year's biggest political contributors is Linda Pritzker of Houston. She donated $900,000 in her own name to a pro-Kerry group. Then, in December, she created Sustainable World Corp. and kicked in another $4.1 million through it.
Because Pritzker's name isn't tied to Sustainable World in corporate records filed with the state, her involvement could have remained a mystery. But a leader of Joint Victory Campaign 2004 told reporters that Sustainable World was Pritzker's corporation.
Some campaign finance experts said the law has another loophole. This one apparently allows 527s to pay a 35 percent tax on a contribution instead of disclosing the donor's name.
Some groups just blatantly disregard the rules.
About three dozen 527s have delayed reporting some donations, sometimes waiting until well after elections are over, said Derek Willis, who tracks campaign contributions for the Center for Public Integrity. Those donations totaled more than $15 million, but Willis said there is little evidence that the IRS penalized the offenders.
Last month, IRS officials pledged to more aggressively monitor the political organizations.
But there's disagreement over what the rules are. Some argue that the Federal Election Commission should enforce donation limits on 527s. Among those complaining is the Bush campaign; Republicans have lagged far behind Democrats in building 527 organizations.
But Republicans are ramping up their efforts. In the coming weeks, expect the November Fund, a 527 funded by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to take aim at Kerry.
---
Campaign watchdog organizations fear that another kind of group is gaining clout in the wake of campaign finance reform.
But there's no way to know for sure.
That's because these groups - 501© organizations - won't have to report any of their financial activity until the end of the year, long after the money they've spent has had its impact.
And they'll never have to list their individual donors.
These groups are supposed to act on behalf of various causes and issues. The NAACP and the National Rifle Association, for example, take part in various politically related activities, including voter registration and advocacy.
Such groups can't directly campaign for or against a candidate. But they can run ads that criticize a candidate's stance on a particular issue - a distinction that some say is meaningless.
That's what's happened this year in the 32nd Congressional District race in Texas, which pits U.S. Rep. Martin Frost, a Democrat, against U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, a Republican.
Early in their campaigns, both candidates said they didn't want outside groups running attack ads.
But the Coalition for the Future American Worker has run TV and radio ads criticizing Frost's stance on some immigration-related legislation. The ads never say to vote against Frost and don't mention Sessions.
Coalition spokesman Ira Mehlman said the ads' goal is to pressure candidates to address issues such as amnesty for illegal immigrants, which the group opposes. He said his group isn't trying to influence the election outcome. He also declined to release names of individual donors.
Public Citizen, a campaign watchdog organization, recently analyzed 501© activity in 2002 and found that most of these organizations that were politically active favored Republican candidates.
Some experts believe 501© groups will step up efforts as the election draws near.
"I expect 501©s to be used and abused in a fairly flamboyant way," said Fran Hill, a University of Miami professor who specializes in tax law and campaign finance issues.
While Hill believes the campaign finance legislation brought about some needed changes, she said wealthy Americans "who somehow think their voices should be louder than the rest of us" are finding ways to maintain their influence.
Changing that will take time, she said.
"Reform comes in America incrementally," Hill said. "You solve some problems, others become relatively more prominent, then you solve them. ... We muddle through, step by step."
---
(Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Jeff Claassen contributed to this report.)
But Republicans are ramping up their efforts. In the coming weeks, expect the November Fund, a 527 funded by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to take aim at Kerry.
***Chamber of Commerce funding anti-Edwards ads ***The chamber said it would not endorse Bush, ...***
Interesting info - I wonder if we know all of Teresa Hinez Kerry's ties.
***One of this year's biggest political contributors is Linda Pritzker of Houston. She donated $900,000 in her own name to a pro-Kerry group. Then, in December, she
created Sustainable World Corp. and kicked in another $4.1 million through it.
Because Pritzker's name isn't tied to Sustainable World in corporate records filed with the state, her involvement could have remained a mystery. But a leader of
Joint Victory Campaign 2004 told reporters that Sustainable World was Pritzker's corporation.
Some campaign finance experts said the law has another loophole. This one apparently allows 527s to pay a 35 percent tax on a contribution instead of disclosing
the donor's name. ***
Oh, that's nice.
When they're out foxed by their own game, the Left want to change the rules.
It's the little donors who have flooded the anti-Kerry 527 ads.
It's free speech!
McCain-Feingold's "Campaign Reform" should be repealed. The "only" legitimate limitation that should be put on campaign financing is "transparency" (i.e. ANY group that indulges in political activity MUST publish a list of their donees and the amount donated to political causes---and that shold include UNIONS as well).
And time spent on the candidates' behalf, ie news organizations and teachers' union get out the vote hours.
even fox and friends is behind the curve. The "opperation fortunate son" was debunked last night with extreme freeper prejudice.
BTW they claim they are going to have the "forged as hell" commander is on NEXT.
But each and every name of each and every donor has been reported, including mine. At least they will be as soon as they can catch up with the flood of new donations. Though they did not have to do that for some time yet. You'll not see the anti Bush 527s doing that. They will wait until the last minute to publish Soros name, probably even after the deadline and then pay the fine for not reporting on time.
The article also fails to mention that only 527s funded by individual, not group, donations can run ads starting 60 days before the election. At least that's how I read the law. It's also what SWVT does, that is accept only individual donations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.