Posted on 08/28/2002 4:57:08 AM PDT by MindBender26
Second quarterly 2002 disclosure reports filed by shadowy "527" political organizations show a continued race for unlimited "soft money" contributions that fund the groups’ electioneering activities. While only a handful of the most recent reports are available on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) online disclosure system, Public Citizen collected scores of reports by going directly to groups’ offices and requesting copies of the filings for public inspection [as is allowed under 26 USC 6104(d)].
527 groups get their name from the section of the IRS code that governs them and can accept unlimited amounts of "soft money" directly from corporations, unions and individuals. The groups are created to attempt to influence elections and can be broken down into two types: those controlled by members of Congress, "politician 527s," and organizations created to promote specific ideological principles, "non-politician 527s."
Disclosure reports filed by 527 groups covering the second quarter 2002 reveal a soft money race by several possible presidential contenders as well as forays by other organizations into "issue ads" and voter mobilization efforts. Unfortunately, a full understanding of 527 groups’ activities is hampered by disclosure problems that continue to plague the system.
Among the top recipients of 527 contributions during the second quarter were groups affiliated with potential Democratic presidential candidates. Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), John Edwards (D-N.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) lined their soft money coffers with more than $3.3 million. All four of these congressmembers’ political groups reported significant increases in receipts as they brought in between two and ten times their previous quarterly contribution amounts.
The biggest 527 groups in terms of contributions during the second quarter of 2002 include a public-sector union, two groups controlled by federal politicians and two organizations formed to advocate for specific ideological principles:
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees maintained two 527 groups (AFSCME Special Account and AFSCME People), making it the largest 527 group in the second quarter with $3.4 million in receipts and $3.5 million in expenditures. The union group, which comprises 1.3 million public service and health care workers, collected all its contributions directly from the union and doled out money to local candidates and national Democratic Party committees. AFSCME’s total contributions for the 2002 cycle are $11.6 million.
Sen. Edwards’ 527, New American Optimists, took in $1.9 million from April to June – the most money raised by any politician 527 group during the quarter. Wealthy individuals, including lawyers from all over the country, account for the large donations to Edwards’ group. In fact, three out of every four dollars ($1,429,350) that the 527 group raised came from lawyers or law firms. Also apparent is the immense size of many donations to Edwards’ 527 group: Thirteen donations were for $50,000 or more, while the average donation during the second quarter was more than $28,000. Entertainer Steven Bing was the largest contributor with a $250,000 donation. So far during the 2002 cycle, the New American Optimists has raised $2.4 million.
The League of Conservation Voters, which seeks to hold Congress and the administration accountable through voter scorecards and election advocacy, collected $1.3 million and spent $246,000. Top contributors included Jay Harris ($666,000), Alida Messinger ($473,000) and Wendy Paulson ($278,000). This brings the total collected during the 2002 cycle to $2.9 million. Senate Majority Leader Daschle’s DASHPAC took in $1,127,000 – ten times the amount the 527 group collected in the first three months of the year and nearly the total raised in the first 21 months that disclosure was required. Many of these contributions came in $10,000 increments, as the group has imposed voluntary limits of $10,000 per year on the amount it will accept from any source.
Daschle’s 527 spent $228,000 during the quarter – a large chunk used to make campaign contributions to state and local candidates. This haul doubles DASHPAC’s 2002 cycle contributions, which now total $2 million. IMPAC 2000 remained among leaders in contributions received as the Democratic redistricting group continued to fund a legal operation in states where congressional boundaries are being redrawn. The group raised $955,822 with the help of $600,000 from the Democratic National Committee. IMPAC 2000 spent $1,005,655 with nearly half of that – $495,695 – going to lawyers. So far during the 2002 cycle, IMPAC 2000 has raised $6.1 million. Who Is Contributing? Corporate Cash Versus Individual Donors
Top donors during the second quarter of 2002 to the biggest 527 groups identified by Public Citizen and active in federal elections include investor and prominent liberal Jay Harris ($666,000), the Democratic National Committee ($600,000), liberal philanthropist Alida Messinger ($473,000), former drug company executive Dan Searle ($300,000) and environmentalist Wendy Paulson ($278,000).
Top industries and interest groups contributing during the second quarter 2002 include public sector unions ($3,372,234), lawyers/law firms ($1,722,050), securities and investments ($1,125,130), food processing and sales ($651,000) and national party committees ($640,000). (
Historically, politician 527 groups have depended heavily on corporate contributors to pad their accounts. But the top politician 527 group in the second quarter of 2002, New American Optimists, received 66 percent of its receipts from individuals. Still, though, other top politician 527 groups continued to rely on corporate cash to fill the tills from April through June.
The largest 527 group not affiliated with members of Congress (excluding unions), the League of Conservation Voters, received all its contributions from individuals. The next largest group, EMILY’s List, received 96 percent of its second quarter contributions from individuals.
The Campaign for a Progressive Future, a group trying to make gun control a more prominent political issue, was heavily funded by one single contributor, the liberal philanthropist Elizabeth Gilmore. She gave the organization $230,000, or 99 percent, of the $231,536 the organization took in during the second quarter of 2002.
GOPAC, the Republican training organization, also ranks among the most successful non-politician 527 groups for the last three months. With $197,021 in contributions, only $35,000 (18 percent) came from corporations. GOPAC’s largest donors during this period were Terry and Mary Kohler, who gave $50,000 and $20,000, respectively. The Kohler’s Windway Capital Group makes kitchenware and sailboats. Together they account for about 35 percent of GOPAC’s contributions for the second quarter 2002.
Three other top groups are affiliated with groups of congressmembers and received a mix of corporate, individual and party committee contributions. They include: IMPAC 2000 (63 percent national party committees, 24 percent corporate); New Democrat Network (77 percent corporate, 14 percent individuals); and Republican Main Street Partnership (67 percent corporate, 32 percent individuals).
November 5 is quickly approaching and 527 groups are using a variety of tactics as they prepare to influence the elections. Politician 527s often give to state and local candidates as a way to curry favor with prominent political leaders and build their influence. And indeed, during the second quarter of 2002, DASHPAC contributed $74,338 to local and state candidates while Gephardt’s Effective Government Committee gave $41,500 to local parties and candidates.
But other 527 groups take their message to the voters more directly by funding issue ads or building infrastructure for the campaign’s homestretch. Examples from the second quarter 2002 include:
The Club for Growth, which files monthly disclosure reports, spent almost $200,000 on issue ads in April and May 2002. The ads praise and thank fiscal conservatives for their votes to cut taxes and criticize those candidates (often including moderate Republicans) who vote to limit tax cuts or create new taxes. These ads ran in Iowa, Indiana, Texas, California and New Jersey. In one ad, the Club created a mock game show called "Who’s the Real Tax Cutter?" Scott Garrett, a congressional candidate in New Jersey’s 5th District, wins the contest saying he "has never voted for higher taxes." The $192,619 the Club for Growth paid the media firm Red Sea, LLC during April and May was 47 percent of its total expenditures for that period. (The Club’s June report is not yet available.)
The League of Conservation Voters ran a series of ads attacking Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is running for the Senate against Democratic incumbent Sen. Tim Johnson. The LCV ran three separate waves of ads, first criticizing Thune’s votes on clean water, then alleging that campaign contributions affect his votes and finally a general attack on his environmental record. Thune is at the top of the LCV’s "dirty dozen" list of candidates it is trying to defeat.
EMILY’s List, which supports female, pro-choice candidates, aired an ad criticizing West Virginia democratic candidate Jim Humphreys for not paying his taxes. Humphreys was competing for the Democratic nomination against former judge Margaret Workman. Pro-Choice Vote is taking to the streets in Arkansas, Georgia and Missouri. The group spent $89,324 to pay for field directors and field organizers in those states. Sens. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.) and Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) are all facing tough re-election campaigns.
HotBot
Description: An advanced search engine. There are many configurable options, both in simple as in advanced search mode.
-http://www.google.com/advanced_search--
|
Specific search engines: White pages, Yellow pages, Reverse lookups, US Govt. Directories, Inmate/Prison locators, SS# info, Bankruptcy, Owner of Domain names, Medical profession, Campaign Contributions, Deceased person, US Corporation info, etc.
-http://www.opensecrets.org/-- -http://www.activistcash.com-- -http://www.consumerfreedom.com-- -http://www.ussearch.com/wlcs/index.jsp?srcAdID=4040003011&sourceid=-- |
Wait, I thought Dems were supposed to represent the "little guy" while Pubbies are supposed to represent "moneyed interests." How come, then, it is nearly always the Dems who have the larger average donation size, often larger by multiple orders of magnitude? How come their smaller donations are frequently in- or quasi- voluntary (e.g. from union members)?
How come analyses like this one are NEVER reported by ABCNBCCBSCNN? Remember the monies collected by each party to prosecute the Floraduh election dispute? The media NEVER touched on this subject without mentioning that Bush raised four times the money Gore did, but they never discussed the sizes of the respective donations. Guess why.
I think that he came to FR when someone took issue with some of his claims (doubt he ever donated to keep FR running).
He got media play as being a "registered Republican" who was funding Gore's recount. Voting in the primary doesn't mean that you support any of the candidates on that ballot.
On his website he stated that he never had found a candidate such as Gore; a man who he agrees with on EVERY issue. Yeah, some Republican.
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.