[EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Mon Jan 13 19:36:53 PST 2014
My point of course was that corporate money went to c4s and c6s as an alternative to going to SuperPacs. If those vehicles were not available in elections, the numbers Brad cites would suggest that tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate funds ( now in groups like the Chamber of Commerce) would have gone to SuperPacs--thereby changing the discussion of the amount of money spent by corporations through SuperPacs...
And while I admire the debating point of referring to the small amount spent by non-profits as a percentage of the $7billion total spent on elections in 2012, this number ( the highest FEC figure available) , includes a certain amount of double counting, transfers, plus every non-competitive House race, etc. For purposes of evaluating SuperPac and corporate spending through non-profits, the more relevant number for the discussion is the amount of advertising on air--where the outside funds were a significant percentage of total such spending, spent in the most competitive races.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 7:08 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
>
>
> That's always nice to know but the discussion was whether corporations were funding Super PACs.
>
> However, since you want to go down that road, we could then note that c4 and c6 spending from organizations that did not itemize their general donors amounted to less than 4.5% of all spending in 2012, or about $315 million (per Center for Responsive Politics) of over $7 billion spent. Since we can be sure that not all of that was corporate money, we know that the corporate percentage was, obviously, even less.
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> Professor of Law
> Capital University Law School
> 303 E. Broad St.
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 614.236.6317
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 5:54 PM
> To: Smith, Brad
> Cc: Beckel, Michael; Andy Kroll; Joel Gora; law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies
>
> All of these statements ignore the fact that corporations could spend money on election ads by giving to c4s and c6s for that purpose, rather than to SuperPacs, and avoid disclosure at the same time--an outcome NOT envisioned by the majority in Citizens United.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:46 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
>
> So once you've cut through it all, it seems that:
> a) corporations have not been the primary users of Super Pacs, or even close;
> b) Fortune 500s have been especially rare (this seems to me somewhat important, because the Citizens United majority emphasizes the idea of "mom and pops," while the dissent wants to talk about Exxon Mobil. The reality seems in between but it is smaller corporations that have most participated;
> c) most Super PAC money comes from individuals.
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 E. Broad St.
>
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> 614.236.6317
>
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Beckel, Michael [mbeckel at publicintegrity.org<mailto:mbeckel at publicintegrity.org>]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:44 PM
> To: Andy Kroll; Joel Gora
> Cc: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies
>
> Adding to what Andy Kroll said, I’ll offer this observation:
>
> It seems some super PACs have made more of an effort than others to court corporate donors. American Crossroads, Restore Our Future, Congressional Leadership Fund, and the Fund for Louisiana's Future come to mind.
>
> During the first half of 2013, about 30 percent<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/08/14/13155/investors-companies-fuel-super-pac-tied-boehner> of the Congressional Leadership Fund’s money came from corporate givers, including White Castle, the Apollo Group and an LLC connected to high-stakes gambler and golf course developer Billy Walters.
>
> Similarly, the pro-Vitter Fund for Louisiana’s Fund received about two-thirds<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/08/corporate-interests-all-in-for-vitt.html> of its money during the same period from corporate givers.
>
> Meanwhile, at one point ahead of the 2012 election, both American Crossroads and Restore Our Future had reported<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/07/25/10201/big-business-prefers-gop-over-democratic-super-pacs> getting between 10 percent and 25 percent of their funding from companies.
>
> Probably the most striking example of corporate money going to a super PAC that I have seen is the pro-Murkowski Alaskans Standing Together super PAC. This group got about 93%<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/influx-of-corporate-political-cash.html> of its money from Native Alaskan corporations.
>
> On the left, I’ve seen a couple of trial lawyers’ law firms make corporate contributions to pro-Democratic super PACs, but most Dem super PACs seem more interested in courting union money. And on both sides of the aisle, money from individual donors has made up the largest percentage of all.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael Beckel
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>
> From: Andy Kroll [mailto:andykroll at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:15 PM
> To: Joel Gora
> Cc: Beckel, Michael; Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies
>
> 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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:27 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto: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
> <image001.png><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.
> <image001.png><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>.
> <image001.png><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>.
> <image001.png><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).
>
>
> <image001.png><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>.
> <image001.png><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>.
> <image001.png><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>.
> <image001.png><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>
> <image001.png><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<tel:949.824.3072> - office
>
> 949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
>
>
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
View list directory