Not that simple because it's a first amendment issue. You can get rid of money or limit directly to campaigns, but you can't abridge individual speech. It would be equivalent to banning books.
[h=2]Anti-Steyer Ad Leads Left Wing Money-in-Politics Video Contest[/h]Conservative group’s salvo against ‘America’s Biggest Hypocrite’ dominates voting
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 10, 2014 1:30 pm
A leading liberal campaign finance reform organization is running a contest for the best user-submitted video on the evils of money in politics. They probably didn’t expect a conservative group to be the contest’s front-runner.
An online advertisement created by the conservative nonprofit group American Commitment attacking the “hypocrisy” of Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer has ten times as many votes as the next most popular video.
The contest is a project of liberal activist group MoveOn.org and MAYDAY PAC, a super PAC attempting to elect federal candidates who pledge to crack down on political speech.
The contest guidelines call for submissions that stress “the importance of money in politics, and why we need to fundamentally reform the way elections are funded.”
“Show us why the issue is important to you and your community, how it relates to other issues you care about, or why everyone should care,” its website says.
A panel of left-leaning judges will review the entries with the most votes. MAYDAY will feature the winner on its website, and may air the ad on television “if the data shows it makes sense for the campaigns.”
As of Friday afternoon, American Commitment’s video had 1,604 votes. The second-place entry had just 140.
The ad, titled “America’s Biggest Hypocrite,” attacks “Tom Steyer’s job-crushing, tax-hiking agenda,” and notes that despite being the largest donor to outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle—by a $30 million margin—Steyer has financed ads attacking “out-of-state billionaires.”
Steyer, a billionaire from California, funded one such ad backing Iowa Senate candidate Rep. Bruce Braley (D).
American Commitment president Phil Kerpen touted the promising vote tallies for his contest entry in a press release this week.
“We’ve looked at the other entries and are confident that if this is an honest contest and not a partisan charade, our entry will easily win,” Kerpen said.
While MAYDAY probably did not expect a conservative ad to dominate the contest, Kerpen said Steyer embodies the trend that the group is seeking to combat.
“The winning entry in this contest should be about America’s number one fatcat campaign contributor, Tom Steyer—and we have submitted an entry to shine a spotlight on him and on the role hypocritical liberal billionaire contributors play in stoking feigned outrage about conservative donors,” he said in his release.
Steyer has contributed more than $42 million to outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle, roughly as much as the top 33 Republican-leaning donors combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
MAYDAY couches its opposition to political spending in nonpartisan terms, and the group has backed some long-shot Republican candidates who share its concerns.
However, its leader, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, has admitted that he sees campaign finance reform as a means to kneecap political opposition to left-wing political goals such as carbon emission restrictions and Internet regulation.
Other leading campaign finance reform advocates, including congressional backers of a recent push to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history, have also framed the effort as a means to facilitate key pillars of the Democratic Party’s policy agenda.
SHARE
TWEET
'America’s Biggest Hypocrite' ad by American Committment
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 10, 2014 1:30 pm
A leading liberal campaign finance reform organization is running a contest for the best user-submitted video on the evils of money in politics. They probably didn’t expect a conservative group to be the contest’s front-runner.
An online advertisement created by the conservative nonprofit group American Commitment attacking the “hypocrisy” of Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer has ten times as many votes as the next most popular video.
The contest is a project of liberal activist group MoveOn.org and MAYDAY PAC, a super PAC attempting to elect federal candidates who pledge to crack down on political speech.
The contest guidelines call for submissions that stress “the importance of money in politics, and why we need to fundamentally reform the way elections are funded.”
“Show us why the issue is important to you and your community, how it relates to other issues you care about, or why everyone should care,” its website says.
A panel of left-leaning judges will review the entries with the most votes. MAYDAY will feature the winner on its website, and may air the ad on television “if the data shows it makes sense for the campaigns.”
As of Friday afternoon, American Commitment’s video had 1,604 votes. The second-place entry had just 140.
The ad, titled “America’s Biggest Hypocrite,” attacks “Tom Steyer’s job-crushing, tax-hiking agenda,” and notes that despite being the largest donor to outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle—by a $30 million margin—Steyer has financed ads attacking “out-of-state billionaires.”
Steyer, a billionaire from California, funded one such ad backing Iowa Senate candidate Rep. Bruce Braley (D).
American Commitment president Phil Kerpen touted the promising vote tallies for his contest entry in a press release this week.
“We’ve looked at the other entries and are confident that if this is an honest contest and not a partisan charade, our entry will easily win,” Kerpen said.
While MAYDAY probably did not expect a conservative ad to dominate the contest, Kerpen said Steyer embodies the trend that the group is seeking to combat.
“The winning entry in this contest should be about America’s number one fatcat campaign contributor, Tom Steyer—and we have submitted an entry to shine a spotlight on him and on the role hypocritical liberal billionaire contributors play in stoking feigned outrage about conservative donors,” he said in his release.
Steyer has contributed more than $42 million to outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle, roughly as much as the top 33 Republican-leaning donors combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
MAYDAY couches its opposition to political spending in nonpartisan terms, and the group has backed some long-shot Republican candidates who share its concerns.
However, its leader, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, has admitted that he sees campaign finance reform as a means to kneecap political opposition to left-wing political goals such as carbon emission restrictions and Internet regulation.
Other leading campaign finance reform advocates, including congressional backers of a recent push to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history, have also framed the effort as a means to facilitate key pillars of the Democratic Party’s policy agenda.
[h=2]To Attack ‘Koch Brothers,’ Begich Goes Environmentalist[/h]Previously laudatory of Koch company’s cleanup efforts, Begich now hits ‘Koch Brothers’ for water contamination
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 14, 2014 5:00 am
Democratic Sen. Mark Begich has changed his tune on a major environmental issue in his state of Alaska. Just months ago he was concerned about job losses. But seeing an opportunity to attack “the Koch Brothers,” his environmentalist side has emerged.
Asked by the Anchorage Daily News to name one Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that he supports, Begichcited “the regulation that will force the Koch brothers to clean up the polluted groundwater they have left behind at Flint Hills refinery.”
Begich was referring to an EPA settlement last month under which Flint Hills Resources, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, will pay $80,000 in penalties to resolve allegations that it failed to properly clean up contamination at a now-defunct refinery that the company bought in 2004.
When Flint Hills announced it would shut down the refinery this year, Begich was concerned with the move’s economic impacts and encouraged state regulators to minimize cleanup costs. He even praised the company’s cleanup efforts.
Now that Koch Industries and its fraternal libertarian owners have become political punching bags for Democratic senators and candidates around the country, Begich’s rhetoric is more critical of the company.
Environmental contamination at the site, located in North Pole, Alaska, has been an issue for decades.
“Leaks and spills of petroleum and industrial wastewater have occurred ever since the refinery’s start-up in 1977,” the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation notes on its website.
The DEC first noticed the presence of the chemical sulfolane associated with petroleum refining activities in 2001, three years before Flint Hills bought the facility. When the Koch subsidiary took over, levels of the chemical were still below those that, under Alaska law, required cleanup efforts.
However, after consulting with EPA, the DEC reduced that threshold, requiring Flint Hills, then the owner, to initiate cleanup efforts.
Koch insists that it was proactive in those efforts and took steps to provide potable water to residents of North Pole, where the refinery was located. The DEC lauds Flint Hills’ work on its website.
“Flint Hills responded immediately with caution, providing individual notifications and an alternative clean water supply to all residents whose drinking water wells were or were likely to be contaminated,” DEC says.
Begich himself has lauded Flint Hills’ efforts to mitigate environmental damage and assist residents affected by it.
Flint Hills converted the facility into a transportation terminal in February, citing extensive costs associated with the cleanup effort and continued operation of the refinery.
Begich at the time noted the company’s “commitment to provide North Pole residents who live in the contaminated groundwater area with alternative water sources and to sustain their remediation efforts.”
Other local officials also lauded the company’s remediation efforts.
“As well as being an economic driver in North Pole as part of the sulfolane cleanup process, Flint Hills has spent nearly $8 million in infrastructure upgrades to the water and sewer utility system to ensure North Pole City residents have a dedicated clean source of drinking water,” noted North Pole mayor Bryce Ward in February.
Ward also expressed concern that the decision by EPA and DEC to reduce the sulfolane levels necessary to conduct cleanup efforts would unnecessarily impede efforts to get the refinery up and running again.
“I fear that the stringent sulfolane cleanup level … may be too much of a burden for the refinery to achieve in an area where all residents have been given an alternative source of drinking water,” Ward wrote.
Begich at the time expressed similar concerns that the cost of cleaning up the refinery site would stifle efforts to keep it in operation. The senator urged Gov. Sean Parnell to address “the cost of cleanup on the land” in order to minimize adverse economic consequences of the refinery’s closure.
Flint Hills has not reconsidered the shift from refining at that site, though it notes that it has provided former employees of the North Pole refinery with jobs at other Flint Hills operations in the lower 48 states.
SHARE
TWEET
Mark Begich / AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 14, 2014 5:00 am
Democratic Sen. Mark Begich has changed his tune on a major environmental issue in his state of Alaska. Just months ago he was concerned about job losses. But seeing an opportunity to attack “the Koch Brothers,” his environmentalist side has emerged.
Asked by the Anchorage Daily News to name one Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that he supports, Begichcited “the regulation that will force the Koch brothers to clean up the polluted groundwater they have left behind at Flint Hills refinery.”
Begich was referring to an EPA settlement last month under which Flint Hills Resources, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, will pay $80,000 in penalties to resolve allegations that it failed to properly clean up contamination at a now-defunct refinery that the company bought in 2004.
When Flint Hills announced it would shut down the refinery this year, Begich was concerned with the move’s economic impacts and encouraged state regulators to minimize cleanup costs. He even praised the company’s cleanup efforts.
Now that Koch Industries and its fraternal libertarian owners have become political punching bags for Democratic senators and candidates around the country, Begich’s rhetoric is more critical of the company.
Environmental contamination at the site, located in North Pole, Alaska, has been an issue for decades.
“Leaks and spills of petroleum and industrial wastewater have occurred ever since the refinery’s start-up in 1977,” the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation notes on its website.
The DEC first noticed the presence of the chemical sulfolane associated with petroleum refining activities in 2001, three years before Flint Hills bought the facility. When the Koch subsidiary took over, levels of the chemical were still below those that, under Alaska law, required cleanup efforts.
However, after consulting with EPA, the DEC reduced that threshold, requiring Flint Hills, then the owner, to initiate cleanup efforts.
Koch insists that it was proactive in those efforts and took steps to provide potable water to residents of North Pole, where the refinery was located. The DEC lauds Flint Hills’ work on its website.
“Flint Hills responded immediately with caution, providing individual notifications and an alternative clean water supply to all residents whose drinking water wells were or were likely to be contaminated,” DEC says.
Begich himself has lauded Flint Hills’ efforts to mitigate environmental damage and assist residents affected by it.
Flint Hills converted the facility into a transportation terminal in February, citing extensive costs associated with the cleanup effort and continued operation of the refinery.
Begich at the time noted the company’s “commitment to provide North Pole residents who live in the contaminated groundwater area with alternative water sources and to sustain their remediation efforts.”
Other local officials also lauded the company’s remediation efforts.
“As well as being an economic driver in North Pole as part of the sulfolane cleanup process, Flint Hills has spent nearly $8 million in infrastructure upgrades to the water and sewer utility system to ensure North Pole City residents have a dedicated clean source of drinking water,” noted North Pole mayor Bryce Ward in February.
Ward also expressed concern that the decision by EPA and DEC to reduce the sulfolane levels necessary to conduct cleanup efforts would unnecessarily impede efforts to get the refinery up and running again.
“I fear that the stringent sulfolane cleanup level … may be too much of a burden for the refinery to achieve in an area where all residents have been given an alternative source of drinking water,” Ward wrote.
Begich at the time expressed similar concerns that the cost of cleaning up the refinery site would stifle efforts to keep it in operation. The senator urged Gov. Sean Parnell to address “the cost of cleanup on the land” in order to minimize adverse economic consequences of the refinery’s closure.
Flint Hills has not reconsidered the shift from refining at that site, though it notes that it has provided former employees of the North Pole refinery with jobs at other Flint Hills operations in the lower 48 states.
[h=2]Poll: Harry Reid’s War on the Koch Brothers Is a Bust[/h]They're more popular than he is
BY: Andrew Stiles
October 15, 2014 5:25 pm
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that Reid’s efforts haven’t panned out like he might have hoped. Only 27 percent of voters have a negative view of the charity givers, while 47 percent don’t know who they are. Those number haven’t moved significantly since a similar poll taken back in April. Reid, meanwhile, is far less popular. Nearly 40 percent of voters have a negative view of the senator.
Reid has often ranted about the Koch brothers’ evil plan to “buy our democracy.” But as it turns out, the single largest donor—by far—to outside spending groups this cycle is Reid’s good friend Tom Steyer, an environmentalist billionaire.
BY: Andrew Stiles
October 15, 2014 5:25 pm
SHARE
TWEET
The face of failure. (AP)
Senate Majority Leader (for now) Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has led a rambling crusade against right-leaning philanthropy barons Charles and David Koch. Over the last several months, Reid has called the Koch brothers “un-American” and suggested they were the “main cause” of climate change, among many other incoherent tirades. Democrats running in close races across the country have followed suit, and tried to attack their Republican opponents by linking them to the Kochs.The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that Reid’s efforts haven’t panned out like he might have hoped. Only 27 percent of voters have a negative view of the charity givers, while 47 percent don’t know who they are. Those number haven’t moved significantly since a similar poll taken back in April. Reid, meanwhile, is far less popular. Nearly 40 percent of voters have a negative view of the senator.
Reid has often ranted about the Koch brothers’ evil plan to “buy our democracy.” But as it turns out, the single largest donor—by far—to outside spending groups this cycle is Reid’s good friend Tom Steyer, an environmentalist billionaire.
(flickr)
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2014 Election, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Koch Brothers, Senate. Bookmark the permalink.[h=2]Top Dem Super PAC Gets Big Boost from Soros, Spielberg, Democracy Alliance[/h]Senate Majority PAC discloses $9.2 million in September contributions
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 20, 2014 5:45 pm
The Democratic Party’s top super PACdisclosed more than $9.2 million in September contributions on Monday, listing a who’s who of wealthy liberal donors, many associated with the secretive Democracy Alliance donor network.
New York City businessman Ian Cumming—who “was awarded the largest bonus for any CEO of a publicly traded company in New York” in 2012, according to Crain’s—and a company called HFNWA LLC donated $1 million each.
It is not entirely clear what that company does, but it appears to be affiliated with Franklin Haney, a Democratic mega-donor who was accused of campaign finance violations in the 1990s.
DreamWorks CEO and 3D advocate Jeffrey Katzenberg and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull director Steven Spielberg each gave $250,000 to the Super PAC last month.
Big-name Democratic donors also chipped in: billionaire financier George Soros and real estate mogul Herb Sandler, who pioneered an investment model dubbed the “the Typhoid Mary of the mortgage industry,” gave $500,000 each.
Senate Majority PAC is one of 180 groups supported by the Democracy Alliance, and DA partners came through in a big way last month.
Contributions from those partners included $500,000 from Amy Goldman Fowler, $100,000 from Wayne Jordan, $95,000 from David Bonderman, and $12,500 from Lisa Blue Baron.
The super PAC also reported a $750,000 contribution from venture capitalist John Doerr, who hasfinanced the campaigns of numerous Democrats and sat on federal panels advising the disbursement of green energy subsidies, some of which supported companies in which his venture capital firm had invested.
Senate Majority PAC also received millions of dollars from labor unions, including those representing food and commercial workers, government workers, teachers, painters, and letter carriers.
The American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers lobby formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, gave the group $375,000, bringing its total contributions for the cycle to $825,000.
Already the left’s biggest outside spender of the 2014 election cycle, September’s haul will contribute to a last-minute effort by Senate Majority PAC to keep Congress’ upper chamber in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who has deep ties to the group.
SHARE
TWEET
Harry Reid / AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 20, 2014 5:45 pm
The Democratic Party’s top super PACdisclosed more than $9.2 million in September contributions on Monday, listing a who’s who of wealthy liberal donors, many associated with the secretive Democracy Alliance donor network.
New York City businessman Ian Cumming—who “was awarded the largest bonus for any CEO of a publicly traded company in New York” in 2012, according to Crain’s—and a company called HFNWA LLC donated $1 million each.
It is not entirely clear what that company does, but it appears to be affiliated with Franklin Haney, a Democratic mega-donor who was accused of campaign finance violations in the 1990s.
DreamWorks CEO and 3D advocate Jeffrey Katzenberg and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull director Steven Spielberg each gave $250,000 to the Super PAC last month.
Big-name Democratic donors also chipped in: billionaire financier George Soros and real estate mogul Herb Sandler, who pioneered an investment model dubbed the “the Typhoid Mary of the mortgage industry,” gave $500,000 each.
Senate Majority PAC is one of 180 groups supported by the Democracy Alliance, and DA partners came through in a big way last month.
Contributions from those partners included $500,000 from Amy Goldman Fowler, $100,000 from Wayne Jordan, $95,000 from David Bonderman, and $12,500 from Lisa Blue Baron.
The super PAC also reported a $750,000 contribution from venture capitalist John Doerr, who hasfinanced the campaigns of numerous Democrats and sat on federal panels advising the disbursement of green energy subsidies, some of which supported companies in which his venture capital firm had invested.
Senate Majority PAC also received millions of dollars from labor unions, including those representing food and commercial workers, government workers, teachers, painters, and letter carriers.
The American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers lobby formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, gave the group $375,000, bringing its total contributions for the cycle to $825,000.
Already the left’s biggest outside spender of the 2014 election cycle, September’s haul will contribute to a last-minute effort by Senate Majority PAC to keep Congress’ upper chamber in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who has deep ties to the group.
[h=2]Dem Mega-Donor Maxes Out to ‘Independent’ Kansas Senate Hopeful[/h]After bankrolling Harry Reid’s super PAC, Jim Simons gives $2,600 to Greg Orman
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 23, 2014 2:00 pm
Greg Orman is still being coy about his partisan allegiances, but more high-dollar Democratic donors are lining up behind his independent U.S. Senate run in Kansas.
The latest Democratic heavyweight to back his campaign is hedge fund billionaire Jim Simons, who gave the $2,600 maximum to Orman’s campaign this month, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Simons has poured money into Democratic campaigns and outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle, including $2 million to Senate Majority PAC, the well-funded Super PAC looking to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) in control of Congress’ upper chamber.
If elected, Orman says he wouldn’t vote to give the gavel to either Reid or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). However, he has refused to say whether he would caucus with Senate Democrats or Republicans.
Supporters of Sen. Pat Roberts, the incumbent Republican, note that Orman previously ran for Senate as a Democrat and say his purported independence is a sham.
Republicans have also pointed to backing for Orman’s campaign from prominent Democrats as indicative of his partisan leanings.
At a debate last week, Roberts himself brought up a recent Orman fundraiser co-hosted by Jonathan Soros, son of billionaire Democratic financier George Soros and a member of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive left-wing donor network.
Simons’ support for Orman could fuel that line of attack. While not as well known as Soros, he has given millions to Democratic candidates, party organs, and interest groups.
Simons founded Renaissance Technologies, a New York-based hedge fund management company that is currently facing at least two federal investigations as well as congressional scrutiny over efforts to shield income from U.S. taxes.
Reniassance and its Medallion hedge funds also provide a source of revenue for the Sea Change Foundation, a group run by Simons’ son Nathaniel, also a major Democratic donor, and his wife.
Sea Change came under congressional scrutiny after the Washington Free Beacon reported that it was funneling money from a shell company in Bermuda to leading liberal think tanks and activist groups in the Untied States.
The Orman campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Hedge fund manager Jim Simons / AP
BY: Lachlan Markay
October 23, 2014 2:00 pm
Greg Orman is still being coy about his partisan allegiances, but more high-dollar Democratic donors are lining up behind his independent U.S. Senate run in Kansas.
The latest Democratic heavyweight to back his campaign is hedge fund billionaire Jim Simons, who gave the $2,600 maximum to Orman’s campaign this month, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Simons has poured money into Democratic campaigns and outside spending groups during the 2014 cycle, including $2 million to Senate Majority PAC, the well-funded Super PAC looking to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) in control of Congress’ upper chamber.
If elected, Orman says he wouldn’t vote to give the gavel to either Reid or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). However, he has refused to say whether he would caucus with Senate Democrats or Republicans.
Supporters of Sen. Pat Roberts, the incumbent Republican, note that Orman previously ran for Senate as a Democrat and say his purported independence is a sham.
Republicans have also pointed to backing for Orman’s campaign from prominent Democrats as indicative of his partisan leanings.
At a debate last week, Roberts himself brought up a recent Orman fundraiser co-hosted by Jonathan Soros, son of billionaire Democratic financier George Soros and a member of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive left-wing donor network.
Simons’ support for Orman could fuel that line of attack. While not as well known as Soros, he has given millions to Democratic candidates, party organs, and interest groups.
Simons founded Renaissance Technologies, a New York-based hedge fund management company that is currently facing at least two federal investigations as well as congressional scrutiny over efforts to shield income from U.S. taxes.
Reniassance and its Medallion hedge funds also provide a source of revenue for the Sea Change Foundation, a group run by Simons’ son Nathaniel, also a major Democratic donor, and his wife.
Sea Change came under congressional scrutiny after the Washington Free Beacon reported that it was funneling money from a shell company in Bermuda to leading liberal think tanks and activist groups in the Untied States.
The Orman campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
[h=2]Liberal Billionaires Dominate Super PAC Game in 2014[/h]
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
October 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Liberal billionaires are leaving conservatives in the dust when it comes to Super PAC spending during the 2014 election cycle, according to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.
It is the very billionaires who decried the 2010 Citizens United case who are now “taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling,” writes the group.
Sunlight charted the ideological breakdown of spending up to this point.
Also helping tilt the Super PAC spending scale to the left are Fred Eychaner ($7.9 million), George Soros ($3.56 million), and Jim Simons ($3 million).
Tom Steyer and his wife Kat Taylor with Paul and Nancy Pelosi at the Golden Gate Bridge 75th Anniversary celebration / Drew Altizer Photography
BY: Brent Scher
October 27, 2014 1:27 pm
Liberal billionaires are leaving conservatives in the dust when it comes to Super PAC spending during the 2014 election cycle, according to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.
It is the very billionaires who decried the 2010 Citizens United case who are now “taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling,” writes the group.
Taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which opened the door to political spending by outside groups that can raise funds in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions, Republican billionaire donors and the super PACs they funded dominated the 2010 elections. In 2012, billionaire Democratic donors, many of whom decried the Citizens United ruling, lagged behind mega donors like Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who combined to give more than $92 million. But in 2014, Democratic billionaires are the biggest givers, and dozens of super PACs have been the beneficiaries.
Leading the pack by far is hedge fund manager turned climate change crusader Tom Steyer, who has thus far put $73,725,000 in the hands of Super PACs this year, making him the largest single contributor to Super PACs of all time. The money hasn’t all been given to environmental groups.
Steyer pledged to make climate change a key issue in the mid-terms, but has given to groups like the Senate Majority PAC which has supported Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. Landrieu — one of several incumbents in close races that Democrats hope to win in order to preserve their Senate majority — supports the Keystone Pipeline, the controversial project that would transport oil produced from Canadian tar sands to U.S. refineries. At one point, Steyer insisted he would not support candidates who favored building the pipeline.
While Steyer has not insisted on ideological purity, he has more than made good on other promises, including his pledge to give $50 million to NextGen. He gave $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, while NextGen gave Fair Share Action, American Bridge and She’s Changed PAC donations.
Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have given more to Super PACs than all the other donors analyzed by the Sunlight Foundation combined.While Steyer has not insisted on ideological purity, he has more than made good on other promises, including his pledge to give $50 million to NextGen. He gave $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, while NextGen gave Fair Share Action, American Bridge and She’s Changed PAC donations.
Sunlight charted the ideological breakdown of spending up to this point.
Also helping tilt the Super PAC spending scale to the left are Fred Eychaner ($7.9 million), George Soros ($3.56 million), and Jim Simons ($3 million).
[h=2]Seven Unions Top Kochs in Super PAC Spending—and That’s Just the Money We Know About[/h]Majority of political spending by labor unions won’t be known until 2015
EMAIL
BY: Bill McMorris
November 3, 2014 11:45 am
Seven labor unions have given more money to super PACs than the Koch Brothers.
The National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country, has spent more than $22 million on super PACs in the midterm elections, according to theCenter for Responsive Politics. The NEA trails only radical environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer in terms of super PAC donations, according to the Huffington Post.
The NEA’s “dark money” spending is also five times higher than that of liberal bêtes noire, the Koch brothers. The NEA isn’t alone; the AFL-CIO, Carpenters & Joiners Union, AFSCME, Steelworkers, Laborers, and the American Federation of Teachers have all topped the Koch Brothers’ super PAC spending. Nearly all of that money was spent on behalf of Democrats.
Labor unions represented just 11 percent of the nation’s workforce in 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from 20 percent in 1980. However, unions accounted for 17 percent of all outside spending, according to Center for Responsive Politics, which draws data from the Federal Election Commission.
Four of the top 15 industry donors of the cycle are affiliated with unions. Those groups—public sector unions, building trade unions, miscellaneous unions, and industrial unions—accounted for $76 million in outside spending alone. Less than 2 percent of that money went to Republicans.
Unions have numerous legal ways of obscuring their political spending from the public view.
The donations documented on Open Secrets only represent a fraction of union spending. Unions do not have to report much of the electioneering that leaders and members do for the benefit of Democrats, according to Patrick Semmens, spokesman at the National Right to Work Committee.
“Open Secrets does a decent job of aggregating what is reported so far, but if history holds that will be a small fraction of all union political spending and misses state-level spending,” he said.
Filings with the Department of Labor give a more accurate measure of union influence on elections. Those federal records document how much unions spent on “political activities and lobbying” at the state, local, and federal level. They also cover a broad spectrum of activities related to politics, rather than the narrow FEC requirements pertaining to campaign contributions and outside spending.
“Include disbursements for communications with members (or agency fee paying nonmembers) and their families for registration, get-out-the- vote and voter education campaigns, the expenses of establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to union segregated political funds (or PACs), disbursements to political organizations as defined by the IRS in 26 U.S.C. 527, and other political disbursements,” the Labor Department’s disclosure guidelines say.
Much of that spending will not become public until October 2015 when unions file their next disclosures. The DOL disclosures can dramatically increase the spending figures for unions.
The American Federation of Teachers reported $25 million in total “political activities and lobbying” between July 2013 and June, 30 2014, according to its most recent Labor Department disclosures. AFT President Randi Weingarten pledged to spend $20 million on the midterm elections. However, the union has only reported about $10.5 million on politics through October 15, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, suggesting that millions will be spent outside the bounds of the FEC.
The AFT declined to elaborate on how much money has been spent on the state and local level, but did direct the Free Beacon to an article that also fails to elaborate how much money the AFT will spend on the state and local level.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research calculated that unions spent $1.7 billion during 2012 election cycle and $1.3 billion during the 2010 midterm—spending that dwarfed the numbers one would attain from the FEC.
NILRR’s research included “U.S. Department of Labor union financial disclosure (LM-2) forms, Political Action Committee (PAC) filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 527 group reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and state campaign finance reports.” This approach gives union members and the public a more accurate picture of political spending by labor outfits, according to NILRR researcher Stan Greer.
“Union officials are steadily increasing the amount of money they spend on politics to protect and expand their government-granted power to force workers into dues-paying union ranks,” Greer said in the study’s release. “The numbers show that Big Labor is turning its focus further from workplace representation and more and more toward electioneering.”
That exhaustive methodology may not have the whole story of union influence over elections. The Labor Department’s financial disclosure laws do not apply to every labor union.
“Labor organizations that include or represent only state, county, or municipal government employees are not covered by these laws and, therefore, are not required to file” LM2s, the Department of Labor says.
That could leave out a significant amount of labor activity. While private sector union rates plunged over the last four decades, public sector membership expanded. More than 35 percent of all government employees belonged to unions in 2013, according to the BLS.
Increases in membership have allowed these unions to spend big on the midterms. They gave $38.25 million to outside groups—42 percent of all labor money—in 2014.
Nearly every major union has criticized the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which lifted campaign finance barriers for unions and corporations. Embattled Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.) introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision in September. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, sent a letter asking the Senate to pass it.
“Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC four years ago, corporate money has flooded our political system, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans,” the letter says. “The proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to turn down the volume on corporate speech and big money donors, so individual citizens could be heard as our nation’s founders intended.”
The amendment failed. The Huffington Post revealed in October that the NEA has given $20 million to “dark money” super PACs that emerged from Citizens United. That’s just the “dark money” that’s been reported to the FEC, according to Semmens.
“The largest chunk of union political spending is from general treasury funds and won’t show up until they have to file their LM-2s next year,” he said.
Randi Weingarten / AP
BY: Bill McMorris
November 3, 2014 11:45 am
Seven labor unions have given more money to super PACs than the Koch Brothers.
The National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country, has spent more than $22 million on super PACs in the midterm elections, according to theCenter for Responsive Politics. The NEA trails only radical environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer in terms of super PAC donations, according to the Huffington Post.
The NEA’s “dark money” spending is also five times higher than that of liberal bêtes noire, the Koch brothers. The NEA isn’t alone; the AFL-CIO, Carpenters & Joiners Union, AFSCME, Steelworkers, Laborers, and the American Federation of Teachers have all topped the Koch Brothers’ super PAC spending. Nearly all of that money was spent on behalf of Democrats.
Labor unions represented just 11 percent of the nation’s workforce in 2013, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from 20 percent in 1980. However, unions accounted for 17 percent of all outside spending, according to Center for Responsive Politics, which draws data from the Federal Election Commission.
Four of the top 15 industry donors of the cycle are affiliated with unions. Those groups—public sector unions, building trade unions, miscellaneous unions, and industrial unions—accounted for $76 million in outside spending alone. Less than 2 percent of that money went to Republicans.
Unions have numerous legal ways of obscuring their political spending from the public view.
The donations documented on Open Secrets only represent a fraction of union spending. Unions do not have to report much of the electioneering that leaders and members do for the benefit of Democrats, according to Patrick Semmens, spokesman at the National Right to Work Committee.
“Open Secrets does a decent job of aggregating what is reported so far, but if history holds that will be a small fraction of all union political spending and misses state-level spending,” he said.
Filings with the Department of Labor give a more accurate measure of union influence on elections. Those federal records document how much unions spent on “political activities and lobbying” at the state, local, and federal level. They also cover a broad spectrum of activities related to politics, rather than the narrow FEC requirements pertaining to campaign contributions and outside spending.
“Include disbursements for communications with members (or agency fee paying nonmembers) and their families for registration, get-out-the- vote and voter education campaigns, the expenses of establishing, administering and soliciting contributions to union segregated political funds (or PACs), disbursements to political organizations as defined by the IRS in 26 U.S.C. 527, and other political disbursements,” the Labor Department’s disclosure guidelines say.
Much of that spending will not become public until October 2015 when unions file their next disclosures. The DOL disclosures can dramatically increase the spending figures for unions.
The American Federation of Teachers reported $25 million in total “political activities and lobbying” between July 2013 and June, 30 2014, according to its most recent Labor Department disclosures. AFT President Randi Weingarten pledged to spend $20 million on the midterm elections. However, the union has only reported about $10.5 million on politics through October 15, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, suggesting that millions will be spent outside the bounds of the FEC.
The AFT declined to elaborate on how much money has been spent on the state and local level, but did direct the Free Beacon to an article that also fails to elaborate how much money the AFT will spend on the state and local level.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research calculated that unions spent $1.7 billion during 2012 election cycle and $1.3 billion during the 2010 midterm—spending that dwarfed the numbers one would attain from the FEC.
NILRR’s research included “U.S. Department of Labor union financial disclosure (LM-2) forms, Political Action Committee (PAC) filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), 527 group reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and state campaign finance reports.” This approach gives union members and the public a more accurate picture of political spending by labor outfits, according to NILRR researcher Stan Greer.
“Union officials are steadily increasing the amount of money they spend on politics to protect and expand their government-granted power to force workers into dues-paying union ranks,” Greer said in the study’s release. “The numbers show that Big Labor is turning its focus further from workplace representation and more and more toward electioneering.”
That exhaustive methodology may not have the whole story of union influence over elections. The Labor Department’s financial disclosure laws do not apply to every labor union.
“Labor organizations that include or represent only state, county, or municipal government employees are not covered by these laws and, therefore, are not required to file” LM2s, the Department of Labor says.
That could leave out a significant amount of labor activity. While private sector union rates plunged over the last four decades, public sector membership expanded. More than 35 percent of all government employees belonged to unions in 2013, according to the BLS.
Increases in membership have allowed these unions to spend big on the midterms. They gave $38.25 million to outside groups—42 percent of all labor money—in 2014.
Nearly every major union has criticized the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which lifted campaign finance barriers for unions and corporations. Embattled Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.) introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn that decision in September. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, sent a letter asking the Senate to pass it.
“Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC four years ago, corporate money has flooded our political system, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans,” the letter says. “The proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to turn down the volume on corporate speech and big money donors, so individual citizens could be heard as our nation’s founders intended.”
The amendment failed. The Huffington Post revealed in October that the NEA has given $20 million to “dark money” super PACs that emerged from Citizens United. That’s just the “dark money” that’s been reported to the FEC, according to Semmens.
“The largest chunk of union political spending is from general treasury funds and won’t show up until they have to file their LM-2s next year,” he said.
[h=1]DEMOCRAT BILLIONAIRE TOM STEYER MAY HAVE BLOWN $74 MILLION ON ELECTIONS[/h]
Print articleSend a Tip
by WYNTON HALL 4 Nov 2014 351POST A COMMENT
[h=2]Democrat hedge fund billionaire and global warming activist Tom Steyer spent $74 million on Tuesday's midterm elections, making him this election season's single-largest donor. Almost $67 million of Steyer's campaign war chest was spent on his super PAC, NextGen Climate Action, reports Forbes.[/h]However, as The Hill points out, Steyer's big money spending spree may garner him one of the hedge fund titan's most middling returns to date.
In Colorado, Steyer's super PAC has spent $7 million against GOP Senate candidate Rep. Cory Gardner and $421,202 for Democrat Sen. Mark Udall. The RealClearPolitics average of polls has Gardner up 2.5%.
In Iowa, Steyer has blown $4.6 million against Republican rising star Joni Ernst and $781,327 backing embattled Democrat Rep. Bruce Braley. Currently, the RealClearPolitics poll average shows Ernst up 2.3 points over Braley.
In New Hampshire, Steyer has thrown $3.7 million against GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown. As of election day, Brown and Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen remain in a statistical dead heat, with Shaheen up just 0.8%.
More broadly, Steyer's goal of making global warming a centerpiece of the midterm elections has clearly failed. According to Gallup, just 2% of Americans cite "environment/pollution" as among the nation's most important problems. As Forbesnotes, Steyer originally hoped to raise $100 million, with half of that coming from other donors. In the end, Steyer's fellow rich liberal cronies chipped in less than $4 million.
"We are taking a very analytical approach to our campaigns--relying on very specific data," Steyer told Forbes. "But if you can't connect with voters and show them why climate change is impacting their community, it's difficult to motivate them and get them to the polls on Election Day."
Print articleSend a Tip
by WYNTON HALL 4 Nov 2014 351POST A COMMENT
In Colorado, Steyer's super PAC has spent $7 million against GOP Senate candidate Rep. Cory Gardner and $421,202 for Democrat Sen. Mark Udall. The RealClearPolitics average of polls has Gardner up 2.5%.
In Iowa, Steyer has blown $4.6 million against Republican rising star Joni Ernst and $781,327 backing embattled Democrat Rep. Bruce Braley. Currently, the RealClearPolitics poll average shows Ernst up 2.3 points over Braley.
In New Hampshire, Steyer has thrown $3.7 million against GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown. As of election day, Brown and Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen remain in a statistical dead heat, with Shaheen up just 0.8%.
More broadly, Steyer's goal of making global warming a centerpiece of the midterm elections has clearly failed. According to Gallup, just 2% of Americans cite "environment/pollution" as among the nation's most important problems. As Forbesnotes, Steyer originally hoped to raise $100 million, with half of that coming from other donors. In the end, Steyer's fellow rich liberal cronies chipped in less than $4 million.
"We are taking a very analytical approach to our campaigns--relying on very specific data," Steyer told Forbes. "But if you can't connect with voters and show them why climate change is impacting their community, it's difficult to motivate them and get them to the polls on Election Day."
[h=1]JEFFREY KATZENBERG'S CASH CAN'T SAVE KENTUCKY'S ALISON LUNDERGAN GRIMES[/h]
Print articleSend a Tip
by CHRISTIAN TOTO 4 Nov 2014 31POST A COMMENT
[h=2]Hollywood is suffering nearly as much as the Democratic Party tonight.[/h]Not only did the industry's Texan favorite Wendy Davis get clobbered in her run for governor, Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes went down quietly in her attempt to oust incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell.
That fight had DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg's fingerprints all over it. Or, rather, his bank account. Katzenberg gave heavily to the Grimes campaign, calling her battle a vital one for his fellow Democrats to win.
It wasn't for lack of trying on Katzenberg's part.
As for Davis, she instantly grabbed Hollywood's attention with her now famous 11-hour filibuster last year to battle abortion restrictions in Texas. In May, Katzenberg aligned with Steven Spielberg and director J.J. Abrams for a glitzy fundraiser on Davis' behalf.
Late last month, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart lobbed a series of softball questions at the Texas Democrat in a last-ditch effort to boost her flailing campaign.
Print articleSend a Tip
by CHRISTIAN TOTO 4 Nov 2014 31POST A COMMENT
[h=2]Hollywood is suffering nearly as much as the Democratic Party tonight.[/h]Not only did the industry's Texan favorite Wendy Davis get clobbered in her run for governor, Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes went down quietly in her attempt to oust incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell.
That fight had DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg's fingerprints all over it. Or, rather, his bank account. Katzenberg gave heavily to the Grimes campaign, calling her battle a vital one for his fellow Democrats to win.
There is no more important election being held next year in this country,” Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote last September in an invite to a LA fundraiser for Grimes.
Yet Grimes couldn't keep the election fight interesting for long. Fox News declared McConnell the winner at 7:10 p.m. EST.
It wasn't for lack of trying on Katzenberg's part.
As well as giving big bucks to anti-McConnell PACs and raising millions in LA and NYC fundraisers, Katzenberg personally donated the maximum contribution of $5,200 to Grimes’ campaign.
Grimes' campaign also grabbed support from Barbra Streisand, director Rob Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio.
As for Davis, she instantly grabbed Hollywood's attention with her now famous 11-hour filibuster last year to battle abortion restrictions in Texas. In May, Katzenberg aligned with Steven Spielberg and director J.J. Abrams for a glitzy fundraiser on Davis' behalf.
Late last month, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart lobbed a series of softball questions at the Texas Democrat in a last-ditch effort to boost her flailing campaign.
[h=1]U.S. MID-TERMS, TOM STEYER AND THE DEATH OF 'CLIMATE CHANGE' AS A SERIOUS POLITICAL ISSUE[/h]
Print articleSend a Tip
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 6 Nov 2014 519POST A COMMENT
[h=2]There are many reasons to celebrate the Republican party surge in the US mid-term elections but for me they boil down to two words: "Tom" and "Steyer."[/h]If you had to pick one person who embodied everything that is most irritating and wrong about the Obama administration - the Solyndra-style crony capitalism, the war on free markets, small business and cheap energy, the hypocrisy, the injustice, the dogged pursuit of suicidal leftist causes - then liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is your man.
And this is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure - nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket: think how many tartan ties you could buy with that! - but they represented the US electorate'scomprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age.
No it isn't. It really, really isn't. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that the economy, for a start, is much more important. The idea that anyone should ever have thought otherwise - especially people as eminent and influential as the President of the USA and his Secretary of State John Kerry (who considered climate change at least as great a threat as Islamic State) - will surely remain one of the greatest puzzles to future historians of the Obama administration.
Why, these historians will wonder, did Obama choose to stake his reputation - in his second term especially - on an issue so relatively trivial and so liable to blow up in his face as new scientific evidence emerged (eg the fact that there has been no "global warming" since 1998)?
One of the answers they'll come up with, presumably, is Tom Steyer.
Steyer isn't, of course, the only creepy rich liberal hypocrite to talk the green talk whileprivately feathering his nest with fossil fuel interests, nor is he the only one to have abused his cosy relationship with Washington by encouraging it adopt "clean energy" policies from which his own investments benefit.
Numerous liberal one-per centers (aka the Billionaires Club) have had their snouts in the green trough in one way or another for years, whether it's Al Gore with his (now happily) defunct Chicago carbon trading exchange, or the various Hollywood celebrities who enjoy preferential land deals in return for championing the work of The Nature Conservancy, or all the "investors" in "clean energy" scams which only exist because they were propped up by taxpayer- and QE-funded "green jobs" stimulus dirty money. It's just that Steyer happens to be about the worst of the bunch, that's all.
Anyway, what the mid-term results would seem to suggest is that the American people have lost what little remaining appetite they had for the Great Green Climate Scam. And that maybe, with luck, we'll be seeing a bit of pushback from Congress on the disastrous measures which have been foisted on the US economy in the name of lining the pockets of green crony capitalists and obama campaign donors saving the planet from the greatest threat it has ever known.
There's encouraging talk that the Republican controlled Senate may now nix the $12 million it pays annually to the corrupt, self-serving, politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Which isn't a lot of money to remove from the insatiable green maw. But it's a start. And it won't half irritate the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who, like Obama and Kerry, seems determined to stake his reputation on ridding the world of the evil ManBearPig.
Better still is the news that James Inhofe is likely to lead the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans take control of the Senate next year, replacing Barbara Boxer. The symbolism could scarcely be more delicious: a robust climate realist ("denier" as his enemies would call him) and longtime scourge of environmentalist nonsense seizes the iron throne from a Californian Democrat eco-loon so rampantly green she makes the WWF look like Exxon. Already you can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Inhofe's arch enemies at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The next couple of years in America's climate debate are going to get very ugly. But in a good way because now, at last, it's the realists rather than the alarmists who hold the balance of political power.
Print articleSend a Tip
by JAMES DELINGPOLE 6 Nov 2014 519POST A COMMENT
And this is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure - nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket: think how many tartan ties you could buy with that! - but they represented the US electorate'scomprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age.
No it isn't. It really, really isn't. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that the economy, for a start, is much more important. The idea that anyone should ever have thought otherwise - especially people as eminent and influential as the President of the USA and his Secretary of State John Kerry (who considered climate change at least as great a threat as Islamic State) - will surely remain one of the greatest puzzles to future historians of the Obama administration.
Why, these historians will wonder, did Obama choose to stake his reputation - in his second term especially - on an issue so relatively trivial and so liable to blow up in his face as new scientific evidence emerged (eg the fact that there has been no "global warming" since 1998)?
One of the answers they'll come up with, presumably, is Tom Steyer.
Steyer isn't, of course, the only creepy rich liberal hypocrite to talk the green talk whileprivately feathering his nest with fossil fuel interests, nor is he the only one to have abused his cosy relationship with Washington by encouraging it adopt "clean energy" policies from which his own investments benefit.
Numerous liberal one-per centers (aka the Billionaires Club) have had their snouts in the green trough in one way or another for years, whether it's Al Gore with his (now happily) defunct Chicago carbon trading exchange, or the various Hollywood celebrities who enjoy preferential land deals in return for championing the work of The Nature Conservancy, or all the "investors" in "clean energy" scams which only exist because they were propped up by taxpayer- and QE-funded "green jobs" stimulus dirty money. It's just that Steyer happens to be about the worst of the bunch, that's all.
Anyway, what the mid-term results would seem to suggest is that the American people have lost what little remaining appetite they had for the Great Green Climate Scam. And that maybe, with luck, we'll be seeing a bit of pushback from Congress on the disastrous measures which have been foisted on the US economy in the name of lining the pockets of green crony capitalists and obama campaign donors saving the planet from the greatest threat it has ever known.
There's encouraging talk that the Republican controlled Senate may now nix the $12 million it pays annually to the corrupt, self-serving, politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Which isn't a lot of money to remove from the insatiable green maw. But it's a start. And it won't half irritate the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who, like Obama and Kerry, seems determined to stake his reputation on ridding the world of the evil ManBearPig.
Better still is the news that James Inhofe is likely to lead the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans take control of the Senate next year, replacing Barbara Boxer. The symbolism could scarcely be more delicious: a robust climate realist ("denier" as his enemies would call him) and longtime scourge of environmentalist nonsense seizes the iron throne from a Californian Democrat eco-loon so rampantly green she makes the WWF look like Exxon. Already you can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Inhofe's arch enemies at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The next couple of years in America's climate debate are going to get very ugly. But in a good way because now, at last, it's the realists rather than the alarmists who hold the balance of political power.
[h=2]Democracy Alliance Network Behind a Third of 2014 Super PAC Spending[/h]Groups backed by liberal donor club spent more than $250 million on midterms
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Lachlan Markay
November 7, 2014 3:20 pm
The network of political and policy groups backed by the shadowy liberal donor club the Democracy Alliance was responsible for more than one of every three dollars spent by super PACs during the 2014 election cycle, public records show.
Members of the Democracy Alliance network that disclose political spending dropped more than $250 million on the midterms, according to data reported to the Federal Election Commission.
That included more than $180 million in expenditures by super PACs, more than a third of the $515 million spent by all such groups during the 2014 election cycle.
The groups’ extensive involvement in Democrats’ political efforts undercuts common media characterizations of the Democracy Alliance, which generally present the array of groups it supports as less involved in electioneering than those of similar collaborative donor networks on the right.
Such reports frequently downplay the scale of the Democracy Alliance network, commonly reported as consisting of fewer than two dozen organizations.
While DA’s 21 “aligned network” and “dynamic investment” groups form the core of its collaborative fundraising efforts, the Alliance in fact backs a far larger array of liberal political and policy groups.
As Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche told attendees of its April 2014 conference in Chicago, DA now encourages its donors to support groups on its “Progressive Infrastructure Map,” which, LaMarche said has “now grown to 180 organizations,” in addition to its 21 primary beneficiaries.
Progressive infrastructure map organizations include some of the wealthiest and most active super PACs of the 2014 election cycle, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D., Nev.) Senate Majority PAC and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action.
Seventeen of the groups that DA recommends for support by its wealthy liberal donors are super PACs that made independent expenditures during the 2014 cycle.
However, DA network involvement in this year’s elections went beyond just super PACs. It included traditional 527 political action committees, for-profit political vendors, and officially nonpartisan 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.
The more than a quarter of a billion dollars that such groups spent on federal elections this cycle include disbursements through mid-October. Committees will not be required to report spending in the final weeks of the campaign until December.
The total also does not include undisclosed spending by “dark money” groups that are not forced to report most of their expenditures to the FEC.
Some of the most prominent recipients of DA support—aligned network groups such as ProgressNow and progressive infrastructure map groups like the 350.org Action Fund—are 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their donors or most of their spending on political advocacy.
Some of those groups have been active in federal elections. Others, such as Organizing for Action, President Barack Obama’s revamped reelection campaign and a DA “dynamic investment,” spend millions promoting the Democratic positions on issues that were central to the campaigns of many federal candidates.
Politico reported in June that the Democracy Alliance’s 21 core organizations planned to spend $374 million this cycle.
The lack of disclosure from many groups in the network and not-yet-reported disbursements during the last two weeks of the campaign make it difficult to know whether the DA network achieved that goal.
Total election-related spending by the Democracy Alliance network—which excludes transfers between its various groups—rivals, and could even exceed, political expenditures by the network of groups supported by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch.
“The real difference [between the Koch Network and the DA] is this,” Alliance president Gara LaMarche told the Huffington Post in September. “Democracy Alliance donors will probably always be outspent by our counterparts on the right, but our partners are wealthy individuals and families working for a world in which their money will have less of an influence on politics, and where every American has the opportunity to succeed.”
LaMarche previously touted campaign finance reform as a means to kneecap the political opposition and make it easier to advance the Democracy Alliance’s policy goals.
While it is not clear what percentage of the Koch Network’s funds came from Charles and David Koch themselves, reported fundraising totals by that network are only slightly larger than the partial spending totals reported by DA network groups to the FEC.
Donors to the Koch Network planned to raise $290 million for its portfolio organizations during the 2014 cycle, according to a Daily Beast report in June.
Recipients of that money included independent expenditure political groups and nonprofits that, like DA’s (c)(4) beneficiaries, disclose little about their donors or their expenditures.
Unlike those “dark money” groups, Super PACs are permitted by law to engage in “express advocacy,” meaning they can explicitly ask voters to support or oppose a candidate.
Among those groups, Democracy Alliance spending dwarfs that of the Koch Network, which primarily finances nonprofits such as Americans for Prosperity that are not as explicitly partisan.
The leading super PAC supported by the Kochs, the Freedom Partners Action Fund, spent just $15.5 million in the 2014 cycle, about 27% of NextGen’s federal disbursements.
SHARE
TWEET
Flickr user 401(K) 2012
BY: Lachlan Markay
November 7, 2014 3:20 pm
The network of political and policy groups backed by the shadowy liberal donor club the Democracy Alliance was responsible for more than one of every three dollars spent by super PACs during the 2014 election cycle, public records show.
Members of the Democracy Alliance network that disclose political spending dropped more than $250 million on the midterms, according to data reported to the Federal Election Commission.
That included more than $180 million in expenditures by super PACs, more than a third of the $515 million spent by all such groups during the 2014 election cycle.
The groups’ extensive involvement in Democrats’ political efforts undercuts common media characterizations of the Democracy Alliance, which generally present the array of groups it supports as less involved in electioneering than those of similar collaborative donor networks on the right.
Such reports frequently downplay the scale of the Democracy Alliance network, commonly reported as consisting of fewer than two dozen organizations.
While DA’s 21 “aligned network” and “dynamic investment” groups form the core of its collaborative fundraising efforts, the Alliance in fact backs a far larger array of liberal political and policy groups.
As Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche told attendees of its April 2014 conference in Chicago, DA now encourages its donors to support groups on its “Progressive Infrastructure Map,” which, LaMarche said has “now grown to 180 organizations,” in addition to its 21 primary beneficiaries.
Progressive infrastructure map organizations include some of the wealthiest and most active super PACs of the 2014 election cycle, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D., Nev.) Senate Majority PAC and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action.
Seventeen of the groups that DA recommends for support by its wealthy liberal donors are super PACs that made independent expenditures during the 2014 cycle.
However, DA network involvement in this year’s elections went beyond just super PACs. It included traditional 527 political action committees, for-profit political vendors, and officially nonpartisan 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.
The more than a quarter of a billion dollars that such groups spent on federal elections this cycle include disbursements through mid-October. Committees will not be required to report spending in the final weeks of the campaign until December.
The total also does not include undisclosed spending by “dark money” groups that are not forced to report most of their expenditures to the FEC.
Some of the most prominent recipients of DA support—aligned network groups such as ProgressNow and progressive infrastructure map groups like the 350.org Action Fund—are 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their donors or most of their spending on political advocacy.
Some of those groups have been active in federal elections. Others, such as Organizing for Action, President Barack Obama’s revamped reelection campaign and a DA “dynamic investment,” spend millions promoting the Democratic positions on issues that were central to the campaigns of many federal candidates.
Politico reported in June that the Democracy Alliance’s 21 core organizations planned to spend $374 million this cycle.
The lack of disclosure from many groups in the network and not-yet-reported disbursements during the last two weeks of the campaign make it difficult to know whether the DA network achieved that goal.
Total election-related spending by the Democracy Alliance network—which excludes transfers between its various groups—rivals, and could even exceed, political expenditures by the network of groups supported by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch.
“The real difference [between the Koch Network and the DA] is this,” Alliance president Gara LaMarche told the Huffington Post in September. “Democracy Alliance donors will probably always be outspent by our counterparts on the right, but our partners are wealthy individuals and families working for a world in which their money will have less of an influence on politics, and where every American has the opportunity to succeed.”
LaMarche previously touted campaign finance reform as a means to kneecap the political opposition and make it easier to advance the Democracy Alliance’s policy goals.
While it is not clear what percentage of the Koch Network’s funds came from Charles and David Koch themselves, reported fundraising totals by that network are only slightly larger than the partial spending totals reported by DA network groups to the FEC.
Donors to the Koch Network planned to raise $290 million for its portfolio organizations during the 2014 cycle, according to a Daily Beast report in June.
Recipients of that money included independent expenditure political groups and nonprofits that, like DA’s (c)(4) beneficiaries, disclose little about their donors or their expenditures.
Unlike those “dark money” groups, Super PACs are permitted by law to engage in “express advocacy,” meaning they can explicitly ask voters to support or oppose a candidate.
Among those groups, Democracy Alliance spending dwarfs that of the Koch Network, which primarily finances nonprofits such as Americans for Prosperity that are not as explicitly partisan.
The leading super PAC supported by the Kochs, the Freedom Partners Action Fund, spent just $15.5 million in the 2014 cycle, about 27% of NextGen’s federal disbursements.
[h=2]Teachers Unions Spent Big, Lost Big[/h]Record-breaking spending wasted on lost Senate seats and governor’s mansions
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Bill McMorris
November 7, 2014 10:00 am
The nation’s largest teachers unions blew about $60 million of their members’ money on the disastrous 2014 midterms elections.
The record-breaking campaigns waged by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which represent more than 4 million educators nationwide, did little to stem the Republican wave.
The NEA was the second-largest Super PAC donor of the 2014 cycle, spending more than $22 million to aid Democratic candidates for federal office. The federal spending was on top of an estimated $28 million push at the state and local level. The NEA declined an interview request to discuss the election results and its political strategy moving forward.
The AFT had said it planned on spending $20 million during the 2014 cycle, a ten-fold increase from the $2 million it spent on 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFT did not return request for comment. AFT President Randi Weingarten said that Democratic candidates suffered from President Obama’s unpopularity among the electorate.
“It’s clear that many believe this country is on the wrong track and voted for change. Republicans successfully made this a referendum on President Obama’s record and won resoundingly,” she said in a post-election press release.
Democrats made education a leading issue in the race. North Carolina Senator-Elect Thom Tillis was hounded throughout the campaign by claims that he cut the state’s education budget as speaker of the GOP-controlled statehouse. He beat incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan while touting his record as a reformer.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder faced similar criticism from the Democratic Governors Association. The DGA spent millions on ads accusing Snyder of “cutting $1 billion from education.” School funding actually increased by $134 million during Snyder’s term. He beat Democrat Mark Schauer by about four points. Republican Gov. Scott Walker faced immense opposition from public sector unions en route to an eight-point win in Wisconsin—his third electoral victory in four years in that state.
The NEA also targeted Iowa Republican Joni Ernst for her opposition to the Department of Education. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on airtime in the closing days of the race to boost Democratic lawyer Bruce Braley.
“Can voters really trust Joni Ernst? This is the biggest question as Iowa voters head into the polls on Tuesday. Iowa educators know what is best for students, and when they ask voters to do their homework and check Joni Ernst’s record on education, voters should pay attention,” NEA political director Karen White said in a pre-election release.
Ernst beat Brailey by 9 points.
The NEA spent $200,000 on a Spanish language advertisement criticizing Republican Cory Gardner for opposing illegal immigration and briefly mentioned his support for cuts to Pell Grants. Democrats in the state said that the Hispanic vote was crucial to defeating Gardner. Gardner beat incumbent Democrat Sen. Mark Udall by 3 points.
One Colorado substitute teacher, who is not a member of the NEA, expressed surprise at the level of spending in her state.
“I think it’s ridiculous that that much money is being wasted on elections when I make more as a server than as a teacher,” she said.
Labor watchdogs said that the election showcased the misplaced priorities of union officials, as well as the winning message of balancing budgets and reforming public schools. Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts, said that the unions should be focused on participating in education reform, rather than investing so much of their membership’s money on political goals.
“No amount of money that union bosses like Randi Weingarten throw at favored candidates can preserve the failing status quo that protects bad teachers at the expense of their students,” he said.
The unions contributed more than just money to Democratic election prospects. NEA president Lily Eskelsen García spent the closing week of the election cycle campaigning for embattled Democrats across the country. Union members deployed new get-out-the-vote technology and contributed thousands of volunteer hours to help push Democrats into office.
“In state after state, educators have been knocking on doors, phone-banking, and delivering hundreds of thousands of hand-written notes to voters for weeks now. They have sent side-by-side comparison cards about candidates. They have organized block walks during the weekends. They have delivered absentee and early ballots to tens of thousands of eligible voters,” the union said in a pre-election release.
Berman said that voters sent union leaders a clear message on Tuesday.
“Record campaign spending by teacher unions in an effort to elect anti-reform legislators proved to be a complete waste this election cycle, indicating that the pressing need for school reform has become common knowledge that’s broadly accepted by voters,” he said.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Bill McMorris
November 7, 2014 10:00 am
The nation’s largest teachers unions blew about $60 million of their members’ money on the disastrous 2014 midterms elections.
The record-breaking campaigns waged by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which represent more than 4 million educators nationwide, did little to stem the Republican wave.
The NEA was the second-largest Super PAC donor of the 2014 cycle, spending more than $22 million to aid Democratic candidates for federal office. The federal spending was on top of an estimated $28 million push at the state and local level. The NEA declined an interview request to discuss the election results and its political strategy moving forward.
The AFT had said it planned on spending $20 million during the 2014 cycle, a ten-fold increase from the $2 million it spent on 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFT did not return request for comment. AFT President Randi Weingarten said that Democratic candidates suffered from President Obama’s unpopularity among the electorate.
“It’s clear that many believe this country is on the wrong track and voted for change. Republicans successfully made this a referendum on President Obama’s record and won resoundingly,” she said in a post-election press release.
Democrats made education a leading issue in the race. North Carolina Senator-Elect Thom Tillis was hounded throughout the campaign by claims that he cut the state’s education budget as speaker of the GOP-controlled statehouse. He beat incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan while touting his record as a reformer.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder faced similar criticism from the Democratic Governors Association. The DGA spent millions on ads accusing Snyder of “cutting $1 billion from education.” School funding actually increased by $134 million during Snyder’s term. He beat Democrat Mark Schauer by about four points. Republican Gov. Scott Walker faced immense opposition from public sector unions en route to an eight-point win in Wisconsin—his third electoral victory in four years in that state.
The NEA also targeted Iowa Republican Joni Ernst for her opposition to the Department of Education. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on airtime in the closing days of the race to boost Democratic lawyer Bruce Braley.
“Can voters really trust Joni Ernst? This is the biggest question as Iowa voters head into the polls on Tuesday. Iowa educators know what is best for students, and when they ask voters to do their homework and check Joni Ernst’s record on education, voters should pay attention,” NEA political director Karen White said in a pre-election release.
Ernst beat Brailey by 9 points.
The NEA spent $200,000 on a Spanish language advertisement criticizing Republican Cory Gardner for opposing illegal immigration and briefly mentioned his support for cuts to Pell Grants. Democrats in the state said that the Hispanic vote was crucial to defeating Gardner. Gardner beat incumbent Democrat Sen. Mark Udall by 3 points.
One Colorado substitute teacher, who is not a member of the NEA, expressed surprise at the level of spending in her state.
“I think it’s ridiculous that that much money is being wasted on elections when I make more as a server than as a teacher,” she said.
Labor watchdogs said that the election showcased the misplaced priorities of union officials, as well as the winning message of balancing budgets and reforming public schools. Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts, said that the unions should be focused on participating in education reform, rather than investing so much of their membership’s money on political goals.
“No amount of money that union bosses like Randi Weingarten throw at favored candidates can preserve the failing status quo that protects bad teachers at the expense of their students,” he said.
The unions contributed more than just money to Democratic election prospects. NEA president Lily Eskelsen García spent the closing week of the election cycle campaigning for embattled Democrats across the country. Union members deployed new get-out-the-vote technology and contributed thousands of volunteer hours to help push Democrats into office.
“In state after state, educators have been knocking on doors, phone-banking, and delivering hundreds of thousands of hand-written notes to voters for weeks now. They have sent side-by-side comparison cards about candidates. They have organized block walks during the weekends. They have delivered absentee and early ballots to tens of thousands of eligible voters,” the union said in a pre-election release.
Berman said that voters sent union leaders a clear message on Tuesday.
“Record campaign spending by teacher unions in an effort to elect anti-reform legislators proved to be a complete waste this election cycle, indicating that the pressing need for school reform has become common knowledge that’s broadly accepted by voters,” he said.
