[EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies

Mon Jan 13 13:15:29 PST 2014

A January 2013 Demos analysis found that 12% of all super PAC contributions
in the 2012 cycle were made by for-profit corporations.

http://www.demos.org/publication/billion-dollar-democracy-unprecedented-role-money-2012-elections

That figure doesn't differentiate between Fortune 500 and non-Fortune 500
corporations. While the amount of super PAC giving by Fortune 500 companies
may be comparatively small, I don't know if it's accurate to say "there has
been almost no corporate role in Super PAC spending."

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Joel Gora <joel.gora at brooklaw.edu> wrote:

> Regarding the sentence in the abstract of my article about Super PACs, I
> appreciate Michael Beckel’s pointing to three instances of corporate
> contributions to Super PACs from Fortune 500 companies.  I plan to revise
> my abstract appropriately in light of that.  But I believe my basic point
> that there has been almost no corporate role in Super PAC spending remains
> sound, and, indeed, is reinforced by the extremely few examples that Mr.
> Beckel cited to the contrary.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Joel Gora
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Beckel,
> Michael
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:01 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
>
> *Subject:* [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500
> companies
>
>
>
> Clearly, many people have been debating the role of corporate spending
> since Citizens United, but the assertion, made by Prof. Gora, that "not a
> single Fortune 500 company [has] spent a single dollar to support a super
> PAC" is demonstrably false.
>
>
>
> For instance, in October of 2012, Chevron<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/385.html>
>  contributed $2.5 million<http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?13962172773> to
> the Congressional Leadership Fund, which aimed to boost House Republicans.
>
>
>
> Similarly, in 2010, the American Financial Group<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/3108.html>contributed
> $400,000 <http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?10931311093> to the
> pro-GOP American Crossroads super PAC, and MGM Resorts International<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/10269.html>contributed
> $300,000 <http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?11930538937> to the
> pro-Democratic Patriot Majority PAC.
>
>
>
> Some other high-profile corporate donors, some of which are Fortune 1,000
> companies, include<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/11/05/11689/mystery-firm-elections-top-corporate-donor-53-million> the
> Apollo Group, B/E Aerospace, QC Holdings, White Castle and 7-Eleven.
>
>
>
> I'll be the first to note that individuals have been larger boosters<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/12/20/11970/top-25-super-pac-donors-2012-election-cycle>of super PACs than corporations, but some well-known companies have been
> taking the leap into the super PAC waters.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Michael Beckel
>
> Reporter
>
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:27 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/11/14
>
>
> “Bozeman legislative candidate asks court to halt vote-reporting law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881>
>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Missoulian<http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/bozeman-legislative-candidate-asks-court-to-halt-vote-reporting-law/article_b2096482-7a53-11e3-8a52-001a4bcf887a.html>:
> “A Bozeman legislative candidate has asked a federal court to temporarily
> block enforcement of a new state law that requires published campaign
> materials about a legislator’s record to include every vote taken by the
> lawmaker on that issue.”
>
> Chances of this challenge’s success: sky high
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57881&title=%E2%80%9CBozeman%20legislative%20candidate%20asks%20court%20to%20halt%20vote-reporting%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “In Defense of ‘Super PACs’ and of the First Amendment”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879>
>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joel Gora has posed this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376894>on SSRN (*Seton
> Hall Law Review*).  Here is the abstract:
>
> This article is a defense of “Super PACs” and of the First Amendment
> principles that they embody, namely, that we need a robust, wide-open and
> uninhibited discussion of politics and government in order to make our
> democracy work. Like the famous Citizens United ruling in 2010, Super PACs
> have gotten a bad press and have been widely condemned as threats to
> democracy. But Super PACs are really nothing new. They trace their origins
> back to Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 free speech
> ruling which rejected any justification for limiting the independent
> expenditures for political speech. Thus, the day after Buckley, individuals
> and groups were free to spend whatever they wished to support or oppose
> political candidates. Whether they were allowed to join together for such
> purposes was less clear. But Citizens United removed any lingering doubt by
> holding that any speaker – individual, corporate, union, non-profit – was
> free to make independent expenditures without prohibition or limitation.
> Based on those principles, a federal appeals court easily and unanimously
> ruled that what one person or group could do individually, several people
> or groups could do cooperatively, namely, pool their resources to get out
> their common message. That is a Super PAC.
>
> As a result, Super PACs played a noticeable role in the 2012 federal
> elections. But despite popular misconception, they did not dominate or
> control those elections, accounting for only 10 percent of the campaign
> spending, almost all contributions to them were fully and publically
> disclosed, and almost no corporations played any role in any such Super PAC
> spending. Indeed, so far as is known not a single Fortune 500 company spent
> a single dollar to support a Super PAC. Rather, Super PACs enabled more
> speech and debate in our political process, a result to be desired most
> significantly under the First Amendment. So, rather than being a threat to
> democracy, Super PACs have been a boon.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57879&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Defense%20of%20%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20and%20of%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “U.S. justices agree to hear challenge to Ohio speech law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877>
>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reuters reports<http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSBREA091AI20140110>
> .
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57877&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20justices%20agree%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20Ohio%20speech%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Republican FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Need
> Not Register as Political Committee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here <http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044350970.pdf>.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57875&title=Republican%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Need%20Not%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> Key figures in #Bridgegate–Baroni, Samson–also key figures in suit to
> block Lautenberg replacement of Torricelli<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Remember New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson<http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2002/a-24-02-opn.html>
> ?
>
> I have an extensive discussion of  the case in the Democracy Canon<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344476>
> .
>
> Baroni, Forrester’s lawyer, wrote his own article: William E. Baroni, Jr.,
> Administrative Unfeasibility: The Torricelli Replacement Case and the
> Creation of a New Election Law Standard, 27 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 53 (2002).
>
>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57872&title=Key%20figures%20in%20%23Bridgegate%E2%80%93Baroni%2C%20Samson%E2%80%93also%20key%20figures%20in%20suit%20to%20block%20Lautenberg%20replacement%20of%20Torricelli&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Supreme Court to mull right to lie in political ads”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico reports<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/supreme-court-to-mull-right-to-lie-in-political-ads-180995.html>
> .
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57869&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20mull%20right%20to%20lie%20in%20political%20ads%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Democratic FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Should
> Register as Political Committee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <http://t.co/CxAzTPwnnx>.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57867&title=Democratic%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Should%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> “Bitcoin Takes Stage In Texas Senate Campaign”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/10/260572933/bitcoin-takes-stage-in-texas-campaign>
> .
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57865&title=%E2%80%9CBitcoin%20Takes%20Stage%20In%20Texas%20Senate%20Campaign%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Breaking: Supreme Court Takes Case Involving False Campaign Speech<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863>
>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 12:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Today the Court issued an orde<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011014zr_bp24.pdf>r
> granting cert in *Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. *
>
> The cert. petition <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SBA_Cert_Petition.pdf>raises
> two questions, the second of which is substantive on the question of false
> campaign speech laws:
>
> Did the Sixth Circuit err by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth
> Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not
> subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker
> maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law
> manifestly disagree?
>
> Marcia Coyle’s preview of this case<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202615481907&kw=Campaign%20Lies%20Are%20Common%2C%20But%20Are%20They%20Actionable%3F&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130814&src=EMC-Email&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&slreturn=20140010150405>is here. It is not clear to me that the Court in this case is going to
> reach the merits of the constitutionality of laws barring false campaign
> speech (the Court may instead simply say that courts have to decide such
> challenges). But if the Court reaches the merits, I believe the Court is
> likely to hold at least some state laws barring false campaign speech
> unconstitutional. I’ve addressed the issues of the constitutionality of
> limits on campaign lies after *US v. Alvarez* in A Constitutional Right
> to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57863&title=Breaking%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Takes%20Case%20Involving%20False%20Campaign%20Speech&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140113/ac98bbbd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140113/ac98bbbd/attachment.png>