Heading off to work, so this will be short. I just came across an article from PRO PUBLICA highlighting now-public documents that concern the actions of a "social welfare non-profit" called the American Tradition Partnership (in less ambitious days, known as the Western Tradition Partnership), an entity that, in practice, appears to focus its efforts on campaign materials that support like-minded GOP candidates and attack Democrat opponents. It was also responsible for the Montana lawsuit that extended Citizens United to state elections.
Synopsis:
* Even before these documents, the organization had been accused of violating campaign finance laws. However, past investigations seemed to run short on concrete evidence establishing coordination with candidates.
* The origin of these documents is murky (involving a meth house and a stolen car), but they are numerous and detailed. They appear to originate from a direct mail company associated with the group's campaigning.
* The group's donor list includes mining executives and the like. A letter to donors invites them to "just sit back on election night and see what a difference you've made".
* The group distributed mailings with a "newspaper" motif, trumpeting the alleged journalistic accolades of one of the group's central members, and featuring crude smears against Democrat incumbents (e.g. depicted alongside sex offenders).
* One former GOP state rep, who won his primary by 20 votes, seemed happy with the assistance he got from this shadowy organization:
"They'll come in, if candidates want some help, they'll come in and help them," said Butcher, who described LeFer as "a Karl Rove type political strategist" who "stays in the background."
In Butcher's case, that help may have included helping his wife to distribute a "family letter" associated with the campaign.
In spite of these detailed documents, it's not clear whether there will be any consequences for this group's funneling large tax-exempt contributions into elections.
The Federal Election Commission has a three-pronged test for proving coordination: Did an outside group pay for ads, phone calls or mailers? Did these materials tell people to vote for or against a candidate, or praise or criticize a candidate in the weeks before an election? Finally, did the candidate, or a representative, agree to the expenditure?
...
Since 2007, the FEC has investigated 64 complaints of coordination, but found against candidates and groups only three times, fining them a total of $107,000, a review of FEC enforcement actions shows.
There's a lot more in the article. I encourage you to post your favorite finds in the comments.
It's no wonder that Rove's group is brazenly plowing ahead with a similar strategy. The few restrictions remaining after Citizens United are built to fail - there's little risk of being caught, and if they are, the fine probably won't offset the money they saved in dodging taxes.
I've often wondered what would happen if I pretended to be a launching a conservative political campaign (provided nothing in my public background gave me away). I suspect that help might materialize from unexpected places, a group of "invisible hands" lifting the campaign. Compared with what I expect would happen when one runs as a progressive - maybe some helpful friends, but certainly no big checks!
Unless we find a way to restrict the influence of money in our elections, I expect little progress on any of the issues we care about.
