GOP May Find Comfort in Soft Money

[Political Heretic]

Source: Washington Post

Congressional Republicans in the doldrums about the rash of retirements in their ranks and the fundraising woes that have dogged them throughout this election cycle should take heart -- the soft money just might be coming.

Two recent developments in the vast world of independent groups hoping to influence the political debate should perk up the ears of any political junkie.

The first is the emergence of the American Future Fund, a group with ties to several high-profile Republican consultants that recently began running ads in Minnesota touting the legislative agenda of Sen. Norm Coleman (R).

...

The second development is the hiring of Carl Forti to take over the political operation at Freedom's Watch ... Forti has spent much of the decade at the National Republican Congressional Committee, running the communications and independent expenditure operations at the House Republican campaign arm. Earlier this year, he served as national political director for the presidential campaign of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902197.html?nav=rss_politics

---

We need to keep our eye on the prize (*cough* GD: P *cough*)

[wildeyed]

1. What is the thinking behind not forcing c-4's to disclose their funding?

But both Freedom's Watch and the American Future Fund are set up as 501(c)(4) groups, a not-for-profit tax designation that allows them to advocate on issues, if not directly for candidates. The other key attribute of the 501(c)(4) is that it can accept unlimited contributions and does not have to ever disclose its donors.


Does this serve a purpose, or is it just another loop hole for big money to influence elections?

[Political Heretic]

2. It serves no purpose - its just a loophole. Here's a quick breakdown:

501(c3) - can not participate in electioneering and lobbying limited to x percent of total operating budget, where x is sometimes relative, but small.

501(c4) - can not, I don't believe, specifically endorse a candidate, but can place issue ads and lobby with no restrictions of percentage of total budget devoted to such activities. As of now, it is NOT subject to FEC regulation, which means no sunshine reports.

Political Action Committees (527s, or PACs) - can essentially do anything they want, but are subject to FEC regulation, which means donor disclosures through sunshine reports. Federal PACs other than the direct candidate campaign (which is a PAC) are subject to calendar restrictions of political ads - I don't remember the details of the restrictions but the closer you get to election day, certain kinds of ads are not allowed. Outside PACs are I think now also banned from direct ads that tell you to vote for a candidate. So they instead run "issue" ads. These usually take the form of trashing one candidate or praising another candidate and then saying "remember this when you cast your vote" but not specifically telling you to vote for a candidate by name. It is a stupid ass end-run that basically defeats the whole purpose of reform.

Others please add to or correct what I've said here - I'm not always correct hee hee :)

[wildeyed]

3. The c3 vs. c4 thing is always confusing to me.

There is so much overlap in what they can do.

Is their any central database of political c4's? Since there is no FEC oversight, seems like someone should be keeping an eye on their activities.

[ladywnch]

4. c3 is the normal non-profit status....the red cross, ASPCA, battered

women's shelters, Cancer organizations, Ronald McDonald House, etc. They largely exist for the good of humanity. The other's are just another name and cover for lobbyist's.

[Political Heretic]

7. That's incorrect.

Most c3 organizations also have c4 parts. And many C4s are outstanding organizations that do incredibly work for social justice... c3s can't be activist organizations. c4s can. The ACLU has both c3 and c4 parts, as due numerous other important non-profits.

[defendandprotect]

5. Just want to mention that with the death of Wm. Buckley, some documents came

tumbling out which seemed to suggest that the CIA was financing the campaigns/slush funds of various members of the Senate/House --- two named were Strom Thurmond and Gerald Ford.
We can probably guess who others were --

Meanwhile, the CIA was routing the money thru Howard Hughes Tool Company, part of which was a CIA front company.

[Political Heretic]

6. I don't know why this was moved from LBN. It isn't an "editorial." And it is current.

But for some reason it was sentenced to death. :shrug:

[mrs panstreppon]

8. More on American Future Fund and Iowa Future Fund

A couple of days ago, I posted about American Future Fund and the Iowa Future Fund at the TPM Cafe: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/american-future-fund-iowa-futu.php

Cross-posted at the Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/3/134856/5744/609/489579

The incorporator, Jessica Young, an employee of Holtzman Vogel, registered IFF and AFF on 8/7/07 in Iowa. According to the articles of incorporation, Young has the power to appoint directors. An Eric Peterson listed himself as IFF president, secretary and director on another document filed with Iowa SoS in February. I called Jessica Young at HV to ask about Peterson and any other directors she may have appointed but an attorney there refused to provide any info, saying it was HV's policy not to disclose client info.

Hotzman Vogel is owned by Alex N. Vogel and his wife, Jill Holtzman Vogel, who are two of the most powerful Republican operatives in DC. I first came across the Vogels in connection with the American Center For Voting Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Voting_Rights)and the Free Enterprise Coalition (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_Enterprise_Coalition)which were 501(c)(4)s set up in 2005 to promote disenfranchisement of Democratic voters through redistricting (e.g. DeLay's Texas scheme)and disenfranchisement (voter i.d. laws). Much of the public's attention on ACVR was focused on Mark "Thor" Hearne but I suspect that Alex Vogel was really running the show. The FEC never got any public attention despite the fact that it was mysteriously funded in 2005 to the tune of $2 million.

What I think is happening is that Holtzman Vogel is organizing off-the-books campaign programs funded by corporate interests and coordinated with the Republican Party. The 501(c)(4)s permit unlimited contributions and provide secrecy for the donor. Since HV is, in effect, an extension of the Republican Party, donors behind fronts like IFF and AFF get credit from the Republican Party for their contributions.

I'm certain that this is how HV was able to raise millions of dollars to fund the American Center For Voting Rights and the Free Enterprise Coalition. The ACVR and FEC were, in effect, were privately run Republican Party programs.

The 501(c)(4)s are dangerous because when the donors reap their rewards from the government, we can't tie the donor to the reward because we don't even know the donation was made.

For example, I think Bruce Rastetter, a wealthy Iowan businessman, is, at least in part, funding AFF and IFF. Rastetter is a major player in the ethanol industry which relies heavily on favorable government regulation and taxpayer subsidies but keep in mind that my evidence is circumstantial:

1. IFF and AFF are registered in Iowa.

2. IFF's president, secretary and director is Eric Peterson. There is an Eric Peterson, a Rastetter Summit Farms employee, who made an unlikely $2k contribution to Giuliani's campaign in December '07. I emailed Peterson and asked him about IFF but he did not respond. Rastetter himself was a Giuliani supporter.

2. Bruce Rastetter is a long time major Republican Party donor and, in fact, considered running against Tom Harkin this year. Being a practical guy, Rastetter recently made his very first contribution ever to a Democrat, $25k to Iowa Governor Chet Culver. Rastetter surely would not want Culver to know he is funding anti-Culver ads.

3. Rastetter and his cohorts made a number of contributions on the same day in October 2007 to Coleman who is co-chair of the Senate Bio-Fuels Caucus.

The Minnesota Dems filed an FEC complaint against American Future Fund but the FEC is a mess so who knows if the FEC will address the problem.

[mrs panstreppon]

9. More on American Future Fund

According to an FEC complaint filed by Minnesota Dems, Nicole Schlinger is the president of American Future Fund. Schlinger is a Repbulican fundraiser and the president of Capitol Resources, located in Brooklyn Iowa. But the p.o. box on the complaint is that of Republican operative, Nick Ryan. Ryan was Rep Jim Nussle's long time campaign manager and he ran Nussle's failed gubernatorial bid.

According to FEC records, Nick Ryan is now an executive of Summit Capital Group, one of Bruce Rastetter's companies.

Bruce Rastetter is a major palyer in the ethanol industry and is on the board of the Renewable Fuels Association.

Pretty darned good bet the ethanol industry is backing American Future Fund.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/3/134856/5744/609/489579