by Paul Blumenthal
As billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch
become a focus of Democratic Party attacks for
their big spending in the 2014 elections, conservatives have argued
back that the Kochs’ “dark money” is puny compared to the shadowy funds
spent by an array of wealthy liberal interests and individuals.
Businessman
Tom Steyer listens during a meeting to announce the launch of a group
called Virginians for Clean Government in Richmond, Va.
Fingers have been pointed at
labor unions,
billionaire investor George Soros,
billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and
the Tides Foundation as the supposed liberal counterparts to the Kochs.But
the numbers just don’t add up. And these progressive groups tend to
operate in the sunshine of public disclosure, unlike the Kochs’
semi-secret political empire.
Let’s start with the misunderstanding — or the deliberate expansion — of the term “dark money.”
Coined in October 2010 by Bill Allison,
editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, “dark money” was meant
to describe the funds spent on elections and election-related issue ads
by political nonprofits that are not required to disclose the names of
their donors. This money skyrocketed following the Supreme Court’s 2010
Citizens United decision.
The term “dark money” does not apply to every nonprofit that does not
disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with
political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.
The
term “dark money” does not apply, however, to every nonprofit that does
not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit
with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.
“Cato
[Institute], Heritage [Foundation] and Center for American Progress
aren’t dark money groups, and neither is the March of Dimes, which also
does not disclose donors,” Allison said via email. “I think of Dark
Money as the money from undisclosed donors spent to influence the
outcome of an election.”
What kinds of nonprofits does the term
cover? Mainly, “social welfare” nonprofits (organized under section
501(c)(4) of the tax code) and trade associations (organized under
section 501(c)(6)), when they spend money to influence electoral
outcomes. It can also cover shell corporations that spend on elections
and have no other apparent purpose.
Those not included under the
“dark money” moniker: public interest nonprofits (organized under
section 501(c)(3)), which may be involved in shaping policy but are
forbidden to engage in electoral activity and labor unions (organized
under section 501(c)(5)), which can participate in elections but must
disclose their donors to the Labor Department.
The Koch brothers run most of their political empire through a network of
501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6) nonprofits.
The
Koch brothers run most of their political empire through a network of
501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits, the majority of which spend money
directly on elections or fund those that do.In total, the Koch political empire
marshaled $400 million in the 2012 election cycle toward
groups and efforts that spent money directly in the electoral arena.
Not every group that received money from the empire reported spending on
elections, but the vast majority of that money went to groups that
spent tens of millions on electoral ads — which must be reported to the
Federal Election Commission — and even more on issue ads that targeted
candidates but didn’t advocate their electoral victory or defeat — which
is not reported. Koch players included Americans for Prosperity, the
American Future Fund and the 60 Plus Association.
Already,
Koch-linked dark money groups have spent more than $30 million on ads targeting vulnerable Democratic congressional candidates running in the 2014 midterms.
It is the electoral focus of the Koch nonprofits and
their sophisticated efforts to shield donors’ identities –
plus the vast sums of money they move — that has brought them the
unwanted attention of both Democratic Senate leadership and reporters.
There
exists no outside network or organization supporting Democratic Party
candidates in elections, while not disclosing its donors, that spends
money in comparable amounts.
Take the Tides Foundation, a
longstanding liberal donor fund that provides money to nonprofits
working on the environment, labor issues, immigrant rights, gay rights,
women’s rights and human rights. Conservative blogs blasted the
foundation as far more influential than the Koch brothers as early as
2011.
But according to tax records accessed through
CitizenAudit.org,
the Tides Foundation allocates little of its money to groups that
engage in FEC-reportable spending on elections. Tides gave just $3.1
million of its $136 million in 2011-2012 grants to 501(c)(4) nonprofits
that are permitted to engage part-time in politics. An even smaller sum
went to such groups that actually reported election spending — i.e.,
dark money groups.
Some of those recipient groups reported
spending large sums on elections, but they received very little of that
from Tides: The League of Conservation Voters, which spent $11.2 million
on elections, received just $150,000 from Tides. The Michigan League of
Conservation Voters spent $860,237 but received only $15,000. Planned
Parenthood spent $6.7 million and received $110,000.
And VoteVets.org spent $3.2 million and received $82,500.
The
Advocacy Fund, a former Tides organization that is still run out of the
same office, gave more to 501(c)(4) nonprofits in the last election
cycle: $11.5 million. But only $5.7 million went to those dark money
groups that actually spent money on the elections. Recipients that
engaged in electoral spending included America Votes ($1.8 million from
the Advocacy Fund), the Campaign for Community Change ($1.3 million),
the League of Conservation Voters ($2 million), the National Wildlife
Federation Action Fund ($125,000), the NRDC Action Fund ($80,000) and
the Sierra Club ($278,000).
So if the Tides Foundation is supposed
to be the liberal equivalent of the Kochs, it’s a pale shadow of the
conservative juggernaut. Combined, the money from Tides and the Advocacy
Fund falls well short of the amounts amassed by the Koch operation.
Another
favorite target of conservative comparison making is George Soros, who
is indeed a major progressive political donor and operates a large
network of nonprofit funds to push his vision of an “open society.” This
network holds assets in the billions of dollars.
But again, the
Soros foundations direct only a tiny fraction of their funds to groups
spending money to directly influence elections. The Open Society Policy
Center and the Fund for Policy Reform, the main Soros groups donating to
501(c)(4) nonprofits, gave $12.9 million to those nonprofits in the
2012 cycle, of which just $1 million went to the subset that spent money
in elections. Soros himself has publicly stated his opposition to
funding attack ads.
In addition, Soros was personally a major
donor to Democratic super PACs in the last election, including $1
million to American Bridge 21st Century, $1 million to Priorities USA
Action, $675,000 to House Majority PAC and $100,000 to Senate Majority
PAC. He has also donated $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary PAC. But
unlike whatever funds the Koch brothers pour into their political
empire, the Soros donations to super PACs are not “dark,” for they are
all disclosed to the FEC in publicly accessible records.
As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned
super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle
has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in
Steyer’s case, its donor.
Other liberal donor funds — including
the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, the Green Tech Action Fund and the Public
Interest Projects Action Fund — donated approximately $35 million to
501(c)(4) nonprofits during the 2012 election. But only 19 percent of
that went to groups that actually spent money on elections.
As for
Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned
super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle
has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in
Steyer’s case, its donor. So far, his CE Action Committee has spent more
than $1 million to help Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) secure victory in a
2013 special election and more than $8 million to help Virginia Governor
Terry McAuliffe (D) win his race.
Steyer has declared that he
intends to spend up to $100 million in the 2014 elections. Although that
would no doubt make him the largest political donor among those backing
Democratic candidates, it remains to be seen whether he will follow
through. The
Los Angeles Times said as much when it wrote that Steyer “may” be the liberal answer to the Kochs.
In
the meantime, the Kochs’ dark money empire is not merely a future
threat or a possible hope. It is a reality, controlled by two
billionaires who chose to operate, as much as they can, in the political
shadows.
In December of 2013, Ed Schultz was scheduled to be the keynote
speaker at a fundraiser for the Broward Democratic Party’s big Unity
Dinner in Florida, but he was forced by his bosses at MSNBC to cancel the appearance and claim that he didn’t know it was a fundraiser.
During the 2012 presidential election, voters reportedly waited on line for upwards of six hours. That wait alone is enough to deter would-be voters
from going to the polls. But now residents in Florida’s most populous
county will have another disincentive: they won’t be able to go to the
bathroom.
Zohydro
had just started rolling out in California markets this March, and
Patrick's decision has forestalled any chances of that happening in the
Northeastern state, calling it a "potentially lethal narcotic
painkiller."
