The Eleven Million Dollar Man

I missed this yesterday, but according to new campaign finance reports the Houston-based housing mogul Bob Perry, best known in politics for his support of the 2004 anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has donated at least $11 million this year to independent Republican campaign groups operating under section 527 of the tax code. Seven million dollars of that money went to American Crossroads, the group founded (and funded) with the help of senior George W. Bush advisors Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, and which is running negative ads against Democrats nationwide. (For esoteric tax reasons about which you can read more here, American Crossroads must periodically disclose its donors; its sister organization, Crossroads GPS, can provide complete anonymity to its givers. Here’s the latest Crossroads GPS broadside against Harry Reid.) Perry has given at least another $4 million to Haley Barbour’s Republican Governors Association, which also discloses its donors periodically.

Let’s put this in perspective. The federal limit for one individual’s contribution to any given candidate is just $2,400 per election. (A primary and a general election count separately). You can give $5,000 to any given Political Action Committee. And if you’re feeling really profligate, you can give a whopping $30,400 to a national party committee. But the law also says that your total contributions to whichever candidates and committees you choose can’t add up to more than $115,500 within a two-year election cycle.

So Bob Perry’s contributions to American Crossroads and the RGA alone–and who knows how much more he’s given to groups that do not disclose donor information–totals nearly 100 times the federal limit for giving to other types of political committees. (Read more about Perry’s history of political activity here.) Never mind that these 527 outfits provide much the same function as, say, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (One key legal distinction: The 527 groups can’t coordinate with candidates or party committees, though in practice they’re run by experienced pols who game out what that coordination would entail and try to emulate it without actually picking up the phone.)

There’s something a little crazy about this; no one would design a campaign system this way from the ground up. What we have is a major loophole in election law that neither the IRS nor the FEC nor Congress is able or willing to address, something you can read more about in my new Time.com piece.

P.S. Republicans argue that Democrats have played the very same game in recent years to far less public scorn. And it is true that in 2004 527 groups like the Media Fund and America Coming Together spent more than $100 million on advertising and voter turnout operations to help defeat George W. Bush. For instance, a lesser-known liberal 527 (which in turn donated heavily to ACT and the Media Fund) known as the Joint Victory Campaign took in $16 million from Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis and another $12 million from George Soros. But the difference between then and now is that those liberal outfits were 527 groups which did periodically disclose their donors. Many of the conservative outfits now in operation, unlike American Crossroads and the RGA, don’t have to reveal anything about where their money comes from. (That list includes that top Obama nemesis, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.) And that, reformers say, undermines a fundamental principle of post-Watergate campaign finance law.

Also, despite what Karl Rove may say, some top reformers did complain about those liberal groups back in 2004.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • freeinpa

    “Also, despite what Karl Rove may say, some top reformers did complain about those liberal groups back in 2004″
    .
    Possibly what was missing was the daily onslaught and outrage expressed by the liberal media. What a difference a letter (R) makes.

  • nflfoghorn

    “The 2010 elections will likely see more than $300 million spent by conservative independent groups who disclose little or nothing about their donors. (Pro-Democratic unions will spend perhaps half that, though their funds come from rank-and-file members, not outside donors.)”
    .
    .
    Now consider your outrage if the shoe were on the other foot.

  • newfreedomblog

    ACK!!! Don’t do what I have done, do what we want you to do NOW!!
    .
    At least you did point out the hypocrisy on this Crowley, however it is buried well into the article.

  • nflfoghorn

    The system is indeed broken. God forbid if deep-pocketed people like Rick Scott get voted in. Might should never make right.

  • grape_crush

    Also, despite what Karl Rove may say, some top reformers did complain about those liberal groups back in 2004.

    Have we not yet established that Karl Rove is a consummate liar who will pull whatever depraved trick necessary in order to further the far-right’s agenda?

    Whatever he says, you can start from the position that it’s:

    1) a lie
    2) a distraction from the real issue
    3) taken out of context
    4) bends the meaning of the words being used
    5) based on his opinion than on provable fact

    The only thing that’s newsworthy about Rove is when isn’t lying, which happens rarely and gets taken back anyway.

  • nflfoghorn

    6) is taken as gospel truth by Flox
    7) becomes a talking point for Miss Prissy

  • freeinpa

    “Now consider your outrage if the shoe were on the other foot.”
    .
    You mean where rank and file members actually had a say as to where and how there conscripted dues was spent? As opposed to people freely giving. The outrage of that result would still only come form the left. Liberals like the concept of a “level playing field” just not the actual fact., Sort of like equal opportunity but what they mean is equal outcome.

  • freeinpa

    The incessant whining and crying about “their lying” is tiresome. Every position that is not agreed upon is greeted with lying. Obama has lied for over 2 years and what do you complain about? An unelected political strategist. He does not lie with any more frequency than any Democrat strategist or for that matter either of you. Yes daily you lie to yourself that you somehow are the only truth speakers alive. That pushes the manure quotient off the chart. Spare us. It’s a belief shared only by you.

  • charlieromeobravo

    There’s no liberal media and no conservative media. There are particular outlets that lean one direction or the other but labeling the “media” as a whole as liberal is painting with too wide of a brush to be useful. The media chases ratings. Liberal or conservative has less to do with it than what attracts eyeballs. Rove is an attention magnet. When the President talks about a particular issue, it attracts attention. And that’s all they’re all looking for, the attention of viewers, listeners, and readers.

  • newfreedomblog

    My God, this describes YOU exactly, grapey. Amazing!!
    .

    Whatever he says, you can start from the position that it’s:
    1) a lie
    2) a distraction from the real issue
    3) taken out of context
    4) bends the meaning of the words being used
    5) based on his opinion (other) than on provable fact

  • kbanginmotown

    Good thing we’ve had Mavericky(tm) John McCain in the Senate making campaign finance reform his personal crusade…

  • freeinpa

    “but labeling the “media” as a whole as liberal is painting with too wide of a brush to be useful”
    .
    That is the liberal line as they try to have 50 shades of gray. Some may be more or less overt than others but it is an easy task to pick the MSM favorites.

  • apr2563

    And yet grape, they quote Rove without question.

  • earljr1

    Karl Rove strikes perpetual fear into liberal hearts. They know only too well, the effectiveness and accomplishments he brings to the table. Progressive candidates tremble with fear and trepidation when Karl lasers in on their ineptitude and who can blame them? His success in making or breaking a candidate is almost legendary. His exploits are greatly admired by the right and in their helpless rage, the left tries to demonize him. So what else is new?

  • diecash1

    Rove represents nearly everything that is wrong in politics today: He’s a liar and an all-around scumbag known for his big bag of dirty tricks and, somehow, he’s greatly admired by the right? That’s an absolutely pathetic statement you’ve made right there.

  • herby002

    1.2 – free,

    If unions don’t like what their leaders do, they can vote them out of office.
    (And please don’t throw out your “union thugs”, “club wielding”, “intimidating”, “beat down” scare words. They aren’t true, and you know it.)

    The shareholders of the member companies of the various Chambers of Commerce have no say in what the CofCs do with the millions dollars that they shovel into Teapublican support ads.

  • herby002
  • perrywhite1

    For all of Glenn Beck’s wigged-out conspiracies about “one-world government” and the UN and Woodrow Wilson and black helicopters and whatnot, he’s missing how America really is losing its sovereignty: Multinational corporations, which owe allegiance to no country, are buying our government. We’re not going to become a slave state due to some imagined “socialism,” but due to outright purchase by anonymous, invisible corporate money.
    .

blog comments powered by Disqus