Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

Outside groups spending record amounts on mid-term elections

Since January 2010, spending by outside organizations to influence congressional elections totals some $57 million--up more than $20 million from a comparable time period in 2006, the most recent non-presidential election cycle--according to reports collected by the Federal Election Commission. 

AP report highlights lack of disclosure in campaign finance world

A report put out by the Asoociated Press today highlights the lack of disclosure of money spent to influence mid-term elections.  The story highlights the successful fundraising efforts by American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two Republican-leaning organizations created by top Bush administration advisors, and notes that the two groups raised $14.5 million combined in one 30-day period that ended on Sunday. 

SpeechNow now speaking

The nonprofit group Speechnow.org has finally established itself as an independent expenture-only committee with the Federal Elections Commission. The group waited for two months after the FEC issued advisory opinions clearly stating that groups could organize to make independent expenditures and receive unlimited contributions -- a result Speechnow's win in a federal court case againt the FEC.

More political organizations declare they'll take unlimited funds

In the 6 weeks following an advisory opinion issued by the Federal Elections Commission allowing some political organizations—called independent expenditure-only PACs—to receive unlimited contributions from corporations and labor unions, 23 groups have registered as such. The FEC is anticipating 67 more to do so as well. To see both FEC lists click here.

FEC plans real-time release of campaign spending data

Earlier this week, Bob Biersack with the Federal Elections Commission detailed the upcoming release of new campaign finance data by the Federal Election Commission. The anticipated release that is scheduled for next week will contain near-real time independent expenditure data and electioneering communication data. Biersack was careful to identify that the type of data being released is not necessarily new, but the format of the data and who the information is supplied by are the important factors. The FEC official writes: “It's important to remember that not all of the activity we see in 2010 in these categories will really be new. People and groups have been making independent expenditures throughout the life of the Federal Election Campaign Act and some of this will simply represent a continuation of that activity, but some of these filings will come from organizations (e.g. corporations and unions using their general treasury funds) that were prohibited from making these expenditures in the past. The same goes for electioneering communications: Groups have been reporting this activity since the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, but the range of organizations that may make these disbursements is now wider.” Groups spending more than $10,000 20 days or more before an election and $1,000 within 19 days of the election on independent expenditures must disclose financial details to the FEC the same day the information is released. Groups spending at least $10,000 on electioneering communications are also required by the FEC to disclose those actions the same day the information is distributed no matter when the spending occurs. The FEC is working to turn the information around as soon as possible by providing automated entry forms for political groups or digitizing information quickly if submitted in hand written form. The longest it could be before any information is available online is two days, and that is if data is received on a weekend.  This is promising news for people interested in following the money behind campaign ads. With all the rule changes and new players able to advance their political agendas in ways never allowed before, it is important that public have access to this information. For information on how states are requiring disclosure to take place read here. And to read about how IE-only committees are taking form, read here.

Everyone and their plumber forming independent expenditure committees

Everyone wants in on the unlimited fun in this post-Citizens United world. Even Joe the Plumber—legally known as Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher—has formed an independent expenditure only committee.   Now, in addition to Joe and several other new IE committee registrants, a Political Action Committee, unconnected to any candidate, has asked the Federal Election Commission to determine it legal for groups like theirs to receive unlimited contributions to pay for independent expenditures such as political ads, which expands on what the FEC made clear in two advisory opinions in mid-July.   The group that submitted the request, the National Defense PAC, supports and contributes to veterans running for office who agree with their views. NDPAC plans to store the individual contributions in a separate bank account and only use those funds for independent expenditures—generally electioneering communications that are not coordinated with a candidate.    The difference between the newly-formed Independent expenditure committees, like Florida is Not For Sale or Joe the Plumber's committee, and groups like NDPAC can be subtle and hard to understand. An aspect of IE committees (or IE-only PACs) is they are non-connected political commitees as is NDPAC, but NDPAC does not solely make independent expenditures. The Advisory Opinion Request submitted by the PAC explains those subtlties in the way the two raise funds and spend those funds:    "A non-connected political committee has two choices with virtually identical reporting obligations. It may operate as an IE-only PAC and raise and expend unlimited funds from any corporation, union, or individual for lE's only. Or, it may operate as a non-IE-only PAC, raise and expend amount-limited contributions from individuals and other political committees only, and make amount-limited direct contributions to candidates as well as unlimited expenditures for LE's. Either approach requires the same accounting of receipts, sources, and expenditures." 

Florida Senate candidate stands to benefit from Citizens United

Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek of Florida is seeking to move congressional offices and grab his state’s senate seat, and if he wins this Tuesday’s primary, he’ll be one step closer. In an effort to make that happen, an independent group has come to the aid of Meek’s modestly-financed campaign—relative to his competitors—and has spent $245,000 placing ads to discredit his opposition, specifically Jeff Greene, a wealthy businessman who has self-financed his run for office.

Google requests AdWords service be exempted from FEC rule

Google has asked the Federal Elections Commission for an exemption from rules requiring disclaimers on campaign ads generated by its AdWords service. The marketing tool provided by Google sells tailored ads that only appear when someone has searched for designated keywords. The ads are small—only 95 characters in all—and only paid for when an internet user clicks on them. 

In wake of court rulings, new political groups intervene in primaries

When Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet fended off a tough primary challenge from former State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, he got a little bit of help from a new kind of political player, which spent $50,000 to make phone calls promoting the incumbent, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Follow the Money: What kind of wave will 2010 bring ashore?

Opinion polls and prognosticators alike suggest that Republicans are poised to make a major comeback in this year’s midterm elections. The comparison du jour is the 1994 “wave” that swept 54 Democrats in the House of Representatives out of office and the Republicans into power for the first time since 1956. A more accurate comparison, based on a Sunlight Foundation analysis of campaign finance disclosure information, would be the 2006 elections when Democrats won 31 seats and a bare majority in the House.

Citizens United: Tennessee's response

Citizens United: Massachusetts' response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at Massachusetts:

Citizens United: Michigan's response

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at Michigan:

Citizens United: New York, California and Washington

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case has rendered 24 states' election laws unconstitutional. The 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed a provision of the McCain-Feingold act that prohibited any electioneering communication—defined as advertising via broadcast, cable or satellite that is paid for by corporations or labor unions. Many states have acted fast to counter corporations’ ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections by passing laws that force disclosure of all independent expenditures in near real time. The Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group has decided to report what each of these states is doing to respond to the highly-contested ruling. Today we're looking at states that didn't have to change their rules, but have anyway: