A political action committee (PAC) is any organization in the United States that campaigns for or against political candidates, ballot initiatives or legislation.[1] At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[2] At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.
History of PACs in the United States
In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). Labor unions moved to work around these limitations by establishing political action committees, to which members could contribute.
In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1974, Amendments to FECA defined how a PAC could operate and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The FECA and the FEC's rules provide for the following:
- Individuals are limited to contributing $5,000 per year to Federal PACs;
- Corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs, but can pay for the administrative costs of a PAC affiliated with the specific corporation or union;
- Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families;
- Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising;
- Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members;
- Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.
Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:
- $5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
- $15,000 to a political party per year; and
- $5,000 to another PAC per year.
- PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns are still prohibited,[3][original research?] such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC.[citation needed]
See section Super PAC backlash
Categorization of PACs
Federal law allows for two types of PACs, connected and non-connected.
Connected PACs
Most of the 4,600 active, registered PACs are "connected PACs" established by businesses, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class," generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation and members in the case of a union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations.[4]
Non-connected PACs
Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, business PAC or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs, the fastest-growing category.[4]
Super PACs
In 2010, a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the United States Supreme Court Court of Appeals ruled in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise in 2010 of a new type of political action committee, popularly dubbed the "super PAC". Officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," Super PACs may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Also unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from corporations, unions and other groups, and from individuals, without legal limits.[5]
As noted, Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. First, in January 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditure for political purposes. Two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in the size and source of contributions to the group.[6]
According to Federal Election Commission advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiation that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[7][8]
Super PACs may support particular candidacies. In the 2012 presidential election, super PACs have played a major role, spending more than the candidates election campaigns in the Republican primaries.[9] As of early April 2012, Restore Our Future—a Super PAC usually described as having been created to help Mitt Romney's presidential campaign—has spent $40 million. Winning Our Future (a pro–Newt Gingrich group) spent $16 million.[5] Super PACs are often run or advised by a candidate's former staff or associates[10].
In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to super PACs has come not from corporations but from wealthy individuals[9]. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised[11], while less than 0.5% of the money given to “the most active Super PACs” was donated by publicly traded corporations.[12] Super PACs have been criticized for relying heavily on negative ads.[13]
The term "Super PAC," was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney, "the first to imbue [the term] with its current meaning of 'political committees that may raise and spend unlimited money to independently support or oppose candidates.'"[14] According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'super PAC' as it’s known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers’ Voices, that it was a kind of '"super PAC" that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.'"[15]
Leadership PACs
Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a Leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures. Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited.[16]
Under the FEC rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs. Since current officeholders have an easier time attracting contributions, Leadership PACs are a way dominant parties can capture seats from other parties. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official's own campaign. However, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses.[17][18][19]
Between 2008 and 2009, leadership PACs raised and spent more than $47 million.[20]
Controversial use of leadership PACs
- Former Rep. John Doolittle's (R) leadership PAC paid 15% to a firm that only employed his wife. Payouts to his wife's firm were $68,630 in 2003 and 2004, and $224,000 in 2005 and 2006. The Doolittle home was raided on 2007.[21] After years of investigation, the Justice Department dropped the case with no charges in June 2010.
- One Leadership PAC purchased $2,139 in gifts from Bose Corporation.[22]
- Former Rep. Richard Pombo (R) used his leadership PAC to pay hotel bills ($22,896) and buy baseball tickets ($320) for donors.[23]
- Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) leadership PAC, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by federal election officials "for improperly accepting donations over federal limits."[24]
By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation.[25] These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations,[26].[27]
Yet despite disclosure rules, most voters in the United States still go to the polls not knowing who contributed for various independent ads.[28] Critics of PACs claimed they have exploited a technicality in the filing requirements to postpone disclosure.[29] In federal elections, PACs have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" filing schedule.[30][31]This means monies may be collected and spent long before the required filing date of a disclosure. Alternately, donors may list an LLC instead of their personal name.[32] One super PAC originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that turned out to have been formed by an individual for that sole purpose.[33]
Many have argued that Super PACs, while meeting the requirements for legal independence, are often not truly independent of the candidates they support.[34] Super PACs are often managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate's immediate family.[35] This in turn has led the press to determine voter intent to support the efforts of a specific candidate according to which PAC a contribution is made.[36] For example the press referred to a filing by Restore Our Future, Inc, that listed 3 large donations by coworkers of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as being "Mitt Romney's FEC filing".[37]
An alternate route to fund a PAC has helped some special interest organizations keep the names of its donors secret years after an election. This route involves donning to a 501(c) non profit, which in turn gives to the Super PAC. The PAC only needs to disclose the name of the nonprofit that made the donation, not donors to that non-profit. [38]
One organization, the National Organization for Marriage, operated two non-profiit arms that received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded several different PACs and contested the release of names that gave to the non-profit.[39] One former 2012 Presidential candidate, Fred Karger, maintained that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel anonymous money to candidates that are against the legalization of same-sex marriage.[40] In Washington State in February 2012, the organization vowed to follow through on a commitment to spend $250,000 to help defeat the Republican state senators who voted for a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry should they seek office again.[41]
The PAC backlash
In the wake of the 2010 landmark case filed by Citizens United that opened up the flood gates of money, Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[42] Attorney James Bopp Jr, who first stated “No one that matters cares”,[43] has subsequently stated members of Congress may realize "they have cut their own throats."[44]
World-wide news organizations began asking in February 2012 if US democracy itself was being bought and sold.[45]
Voter backlash, legal backlash, and congressional backlash are all occurring.[46] Contrary to many opinions that voter backlash would occur, research early in the 2012 campaign indicated most voters found negative advertising informative and candidates benefited from negative advertising sponsored by PACs. [47]
Federal level backlash
Three Federal rulings defending State election laws were apparent setbacks for PACs trying to keep donor names secret. On December 29th, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Family PAC, an organization that describes itself as "the leading pro-family, anti-tax" PAC.[48] According to one scholarly article that reviewed the decision, the Court confirmed that PACs must conform with State of Washington election laws and were required to disclose the names and addresses for anyone contributing over $25.[49][50] Within the ruling, the Court stated:
"The compelling State interest here is providing access to voters to information relevant to voting decision[s]....we do not agree with Family PAC’s contention that disclosure of small contributors does not provide information that enables the electorate to evaluate campaign messages and make informed decisions."[51]
On January 31, 2012, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals rule against the National Organization for Marriage's attempts to continue to keep their donor list secret. The group had also previously lost a challenge to the state's political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.[52][53] This court decision incorporated the "reasonable person in the circumstances," which is generally deemed an objective test. If a reasonable person receiving a solicitation would construe the funds they contributed to be for the purpose of funding a campaign to pass or defeat a ballot measure, then they clearly come within the reporting and disclosure requirements. Thus, the court found that the statute is not sufficiently ambiguous to raise constitutional concerns.[54]
On May 16, 2011, the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld Minnesota's disclosure laws and ban on corporate contributions.[55]
Attorney James Bopp Jr. who argued on the behalf of all three groups against the state is attempting appeals in the US Supreme Court.
In a federal court case filed in Guam by Philip Maise. "Maise says super PACs have allowed for millions of dollars in campaign donations to fund an offensive against same-sex marriage legislation"[56][57]
State level advisory requests pending
Despite losses such as these, PACs in some instances, were contesting previous rulings, and current state election law in the midst of the 2012 election. In Minnesota, Human Rights Campaign pressed for an advisory ruling regarding anonymous PAC spending from the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Commission. The group claimed the National Organization for Marriage was systematically attempting across the country to oppose public disclosure.[58]
Legal backlash at State level
The second legal front in the challenges to PAC spending was occurring largely at the State level where States like Hawaii were attempting to defend the limitations they had imposed on giving to candidates. In February 2012 a Federal Court took under advisement final motions.[59]
State spending limits are also under attack in Montana, where James Bopp Jr stepped in January 2012 to press at a Federal level claims for a group fighting Montana's law that lost in Montana's Supreme Court.[60] North Carolina Right to Life’s independent expenditures committees filed suit against the State of North Carolina in September 2011 claiming their spending limitations were unlawful with representation by James Bopp Jr. An October 2011 lawsuit challenged spending limitations in New Mexico.
Super PAC backlash
It was generally agreed in the 2012 campaign that the formation of a super PAC and the acceptance of large contributions was legal. However, a lingering question was whether super PACs are legal when examined on the basis of how they act. Two agreed-upon illegal actions that a super PAC could not make were to accept foreign funds and to coordinate directly with a candidate. Super PACs were seen in the press as a ready vehicle to allow the easy disguise of illegal foreign donations from both individuals and overseas companies.[61] The concept of actions being illegal, when coordinated with a candidate, came out, in part, after a super PAC named American Crossroads requested permission to communicate to their favored candidate on an above-board basis. Federal Election Commission Program Director Paul S. Ryan's response was that “the Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of contribution limits to preventing corruption, and that expenditures coordinated with candidates must be treated as contributions in order to prevent easy circumvention of the limits."[62]
Long term, at least one analyst has interpreted court decisions, and in particular Speechnow.org versus FEC, to mean super PAC spending was legal "as long as they're not in cahoots with campaigns".[63][64]
Congressional backlash
The third type of backlash is a congressional investigation. On February 2, 2012, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the Rules Committee, promised hearings on this issue and that "overwhelmingly" the bulk of contributions are going to support Republican candidates, owing in part to Democratic positions against continuing tax breaks to the wealthy.[65]
Defending super PAC contributions
Presidential candidate Romney stated in August 2011 that his ability to benefit from large contributions via PACs from individual donors helps him to equalize the influence of corporations and unions that can pool small contributions from many employees or union members. Romney stated “My own view is I don’t like all the influence of money in politics, but I don’t have a solution that’s a lot better than saying let people contribute what they will, then report it, let people know who gave what to who.”[66]
The President and 2012 candidate Obama, who stated in 2007: "I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money",[67] came out with an endorsement of super PACs via his campaign manager Jim Messina in his statement: "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm".[68] According to press reports, in asking his top fundraisers to steer money to the main super PAC backing his reelection, Obama embraced a campaign vehicle he previously denounced.[69]
James Bopp
Much of the credit for the legal framework for PACs and 527 organizations to accept unlimited amounts of money is given to Republican attorney James Bopp, Jr. He fought 30 years and filed 21 cases to eliminate limits on campaign spending, and to keep donor lists private. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. "It’s safe to say that groups on the left and right have Jim Bopp to thank for their new-found freedom."[70][71]
International comparison and response
The leading democracies have different systems of campaign finance, and several have no institutions analogous to American PACs, in that there are no private contributions of large sums of money to individual candidates. This is true, for example in Germany, in France, and in Britain. In these countries, concerns about the influence of campaign contributions on political decisions are less prominent in public discussion.[citation needed]
2008 Election
In the 2008 elections, the top nine PACs by money spent by themselves, a total of $25,794,807 via their affiliates and subsidiaries as follows:
- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $3,344,650
- AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
- American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,140
- National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
- Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
- International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
- International Union of Operating Engineers PAC $2,704,067
- American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
- Laborers' International Union of North America PAC $2,555,350
2012 Election (estimates)
As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle.[72]
The 2012 figures don't include funds raised by State level PACs nor funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool "soft-funds". Spending by non-profits, also called 527 organizations, exceeded $500 million in the 2010 election cycle with the two largest organizations being the Republican Governors Association $131,873,954 and the Democratic Governors Association $64,708,253 [73] Spending by the 527 organizations for the 2012 is expected to be double and much will be derived from donors kept hidden from voters.[74]
See also
- 527 group
- Issue advocacy ads
- Lobbying in the United States
- Money loop
- Politics of the United States
- Soft money
References
- ^ "Kentucky: Secretary of State - Civics Glossary". Sos.ky.gov. 2010-12-20. http://www.sos.ky.gov/kids/civics/glossary.htm. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
- ^ "Federal Campaign Finance Laws". Federal Election Commission. April, 2008. p. 1: §431. Definitions (4). http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
- ^ 2 U.S.C. § 441b
- ^ a b "News Release: Number of Federal PACs Increases", March 9, 2009, Federal Election Commission
- ^ a b "Outside Spending (2010)". Center for Responsive Politics. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php.
- ^ Cordes, Nancy (June 30, 2011). "Colbert gets a Super PAC; So what are they?". CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/30/eveningnews/main20075941.shtml. Retrieved 2011-08-11.
- ^ Grier, Peter (January 18, 2012). "Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert's super PAC?". The Christian Science Monitor.
- ^ McGlynn, Katla (January 18, 2012). "Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Expose More Super PAC Loopholes Without 'Coordinating'". The Huffington Post.
- ^ a b Crankocracy In America. Who really benefitted from Citizens United?| Timothy Noah| 29 March 2012]
- ^ "Who's Financing the 'Super PACs'". The New York Times, February 20, 2012 [February 1, 2012]
- ^ Can 46 rich dudes buy an election? By Charles Riley @CNNMoney March 26, 2012
- ^ Corporations don't pony up for super PACs By ANNA PALMER and ABBY PHILLIP| politico.com| 3/8/12
- ^ Mooney, Brian C. (February 2, 2012). "Super PACs fueling GOP attack ads". The Boston Globe. 2012-02-02
- ^ "Component Parts", Matt Corley, March 14, 2012
- ^ "How Super PACs got their name", Dave Levinthal, January 10, 2012
- ^ Kurtzleben, Danielle (September 27, 2010). "DeMint's PAC Spends $1.5 Million in Independent Expenditures". U.S. News and World Report.
- ^ Stern, Marcus; LaFleur, Jennifer (September 26, 2009). "Leadership PACs: Let the Good Times Roll". Pro Publica. http://www.propublica.org/feature/leadership-pacs-let-the-good-times-roll-925. Retrieved December 10, 2009.
- ^ "Leadership PACs and Sponsors". Federal Election Commission.
- ^ "Congress 101: Political Action Committees". Congressional Quarterly.
- ^ "Leadership PACs". Center for Responsive Politics.
- ^ FBI raids Abramoff-linked congressman’s home, NBC News, Joel Seidman April 19, 2007
- ^ "Political Action Committees". Opensecrets.org. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.asp?strID=C00317511&Cycle=2006. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan; Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. (July 11, 2006). "Lawmaker Criticized for PAC Fees Paid to Wife". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001164.html. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
- ^ "Pelosi PAC fined $21,000 by federal elections officials". USA Today. February 11, 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/california/2004-02-11-pelosi-pac-fined_x.htm. Retrieved May 22, 2010.
- ^ Citizens Informed: Broader Disclosure and Disclaimer for Corporate Electoral Advocacy in the Wake of Citizens United, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Page 625 footnote 13, by Daniel Winik Yale Law School, January 1, 2010
- ^ Campaign finance disclosure 2.0, Election Law Journal, by Richard Briffault, Page 14 of 31, November 4, 2010
- ^ Towards a Madisonian, interest-group-based, approach to lobbying regulation, University of Alabama School of Law, by Anita S. Krishnakumar, Page 10 of 61, February 18, 2007
- ^ Who funds Super PAC? FEC looks into powerful influence, By Gail Russell Chaddock, The Christian Science Monitor, Feb 02, 2012
- ^ Levinthal, Dave; Vogel, Kenneth P. (December 30, 2011). "Super PACs go stealth through first contests". Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70957.html. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
- ^ Federal Election Commission web site, Sourced: February 5, 2012
- ^ Forgetting a lesson from Watergate, CNN, By John Blake, February 4, 2012
- ^ In D.C., a mockery of campaign finance laws, Washington Post, By Colbert I. King, Published: January 14, 2012
- ^ A secret donor revealed, New York Times, By Michael Luo, February 7, 2010
- ^ Calls Rival Gingrich ‘Lobbyist Writ Large’, Bloomberg, November 25, 2011
- ^ What is a 'Super PAC (Political Action Committee)'?, By Brett Williams, Feb 03 2012
- ^ Indiana businesses giving big money to presidential super PACs, Indianapolis Star 2012-02-06
- ^ Filing by Restore Our Future, Inc., January 2012
- ^ I.R.S. Moves to Tax Gifts to Groups Active in Politics, New York Times, By Stephanie Strom, May 12, 2011
- ^ National Organization for Marriage appeals ruling requiring release of donor list, The Associated Press, March 02, 2011
- ^ National Organization for Marriage’s 2010 financial records raise questions, Washington Independent, by Sofia Resnick, December 12, 2011
- ^ Gay marriage foes to fight expected Washington state law, Reuters, By Nicole Neroulias, February 2, 2012
- ^ Amick, John (2010-01-24). "McCain skeptical Supreme Court decision can be countered". The Washington Post. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/mccain-skeptical-supreme-court.html?wprss=44.
- ^ Is New Republican ‘Super PAC’ Legal?, TPM Muckracker, By Ryan J. Reilly, May 18, 2011
- ^ The Daily Beast, February 1, 2012
- ^ http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/us-democracy-being-bought-and-sold-0022021 Is US democracy being bought and sold?, Aljazeera, February 2, 2012]
- ^ Growing backlash against 'Citizens United', The National Law Journal, By Mimi Marziani, January 23, 2012
- ^ Do negative campaign ads work?, ThisNation.com, February 5, 2012
- ^ Family PAC website, Sourced February 5, 2012
- ^ Court invalidates Washington state cap on PAC donations, Reuters, by Terry Baynes December 29, 2011
- ^ Campaign Finance After Two Years of Citizens United, Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, January 21, 2012
- ^ US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Family PAC, US Courts web site, December 29th, 2011
- ^ Anti-gay-marriage group loses Maine list appeal, By David Sharp Associated Press, January 31, 2012
- ^ Maine Gay Marriage Law Repealed, ABC News, by Devin Dwyer, Nov. 4, 2009
- ^ Repeat Performance: 1st Circuit Rejects NOM Challenge to Maine Disclosure Law, New York Law School, by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard, February 1, 2012
- ^ Eighth Circuit muffs it in Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, Center for Competitive Politics, by Brad Smith, May 16, 2011.
- ^ Suit filed on Guam challenges super PACs, Pacific Daily News, by Brett Kelman, March 21, 2012
- ^ Complaint Maise versus Political Action Committees et al, U.S. District Court of Guam, March 19, 2012
- ^ http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_19873464 Gay rights group challenges funding disclosure reports filed over marriage amendment, Associated Press by Steve Karnowski, February 1, 2012
- ^ Campaign spending lawsuit in judge's hands, by Star-Advertiser staff, February 06, 2012
- ^ Citizens United Lawyer Retained by Groups in Montana Campaign Finance Case For High Court Appeal, The National Law Journal, January 13, 2012
- ^ Foreign donations at risk in super PAC landscape, Associated Press, Stephen Braun, February 10, 2012
- ^ FEC Urged to reject Super PAC American Crossroads’ Request for permission to coordinate ads with candidates, The Campaign Legal Center, by Emmy, June 15, 2010
- ^ The Darkest Day in the History of American Super PACs, The Atlantic, by Nancy Scola, January 30, 2012
- ^ Speechnow.org v. FEC, Federal Election Commission web site, Referenced on February 9, 2012
- ^ Morning Joe: Sen. Schumer: superPACs 'damaging' and 'evil', Interview Chuck Schumer, MSN, February 2, 2012
- ^ Conservative lawyer in Citizens United case endorses Mitt Romney for president, Boston Globe, By Shira Schoenberg, February 7, 2012
- ^ | Fourth Democratic Debate
- ^ Obama campaign reverses stance, urging donations to super PAC, MSNBC, By Michael O'Brien, February 7 2012
- ^ Obama's embrace of 'super PAC' will test his base of donors, The Nation, By Matea Gold and Melanie Mason, February 7, 2012
- ^ "Election Spending to Exceed $6 Billion Thanks Partly to Jim Bopp", Bloomberg, Jonathan D. Salant, Sep 21, 2011
- ^ "Citizens United Lawyer: I Hate Super PACs Too", TPM Muckracker, Ryan J. Reilly, February 1, 2012
- ^ Super PACs, Center for Responsive Politics, Open Secrets website, February 04, 2012
- ^ State-Focused 527 Organizations Only, The Center for Responsive Politics, Website Open Secrets.org, Referenced February 5, 2012
- ^ Enter the era of the super PACs, by Josh Boak, September 8, 2011
External links
- Federal Election Commission
- Federal Judicial Branch
- OpenSecrets.org
- PoliticalMoneyLine
|