Republican strategist Karl Rove has boasted on Fox News that the two organizations he co-created are great places for donors to turn when they have maxed out on giving to Republican committees trying to influence the upcoming elections. The trouble is, one of Rove’s groups, Crossroads GPS, is not supposed to be focused on political activity because of the tax code under which it was set up. Still, both groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, are spending like there’s no tomorrow on political ads.
This afternoon, Public Citizen and Protect Our Elections filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking the agency to investigate whether Crossroads GPS is breaking numerous campaign finance laws, including failing to register as a political committee, failing to file committee financial disclosure reports and failing to comply with the political committee organizational requirements. (Read the press release.)
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said:
“American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS are this year’s poster children for everything wrong with our campaign finance system in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “The decision paved the way for unlimited corporate spending on elections, and more generally signaled that Wild West rules now prevail for elections. Yet Crossroads GPS manages to transgress the modest rules still in place, failing to register with the Federal Election Commission as a political committee. We need the FEC to act to redress this apparently wrongful activity. More than that, we need Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act, so we know which corporations and billionaires are behind the attack ads now polluting our airwaves. We need Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, to replace the private election financing system now poisoning our democracy. And we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and get corporate money out of elections.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United has ushered in a flood of corporate money into this year’s election. But rather than seeing direct spending by corporations, companies and wealthy business executives are donating to proxy groups such as Rove’s so they can remain anonymous.
Ironically, the Citizens United ruling, while protecting the rights of corporations to spend freely, also upheld requirements that outside groups spending money on campaigns identify their donors. The FEC, however, has all but ignored campaign spending by independent organizations. Last month, Public Citizen released a report that found only 32 percent of the outside groups spending money on the midterm elections were disclosing their donors, compared to almost 100 percent in 2004.
The problem is that the FEC has been rather busy this year doing things other than enforcing election law. Unfortunately, it’s a mystery what those other things might be.
While we wait on the FEC to review the complaint against Rove and Gellespie, maybe something will come from Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s request for the Internal Revenue Service to look into Crossroads GPS’ 501(c)(4) tax status. Steven T. Dennis writes in Roll Call that Durbin asked the IRS to investigate how Crossroads and other organizations are raising and spending money on campaigns this year.
Tamara R. Pearlman
Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to allow huge sums of monies being contributed to campaigns or is it the duty of the Supreme Court to promote justice in all situations. The Supreme Court is swinging too far to the right and backing the GOP; which shows legal bias. That should be against the law. The downfall is man’s interpretation of the law to meet his needs.
October 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm
gnudarwin
I like to note that anonymous speech is a bellwether of free expression itself. We have all made much of the fact that Citizens United was terrible because it equated corporate largess with free speech. Our opponents might point out that as such, anonymous political contributions seem to be implied. Personally, I have considered making anonymous political contributions from time to time.
What needs to be pointed out is that anonymous speech has no credibility compared to public speech where identities are known. The speaker is putting his name on the line, and if his words are found to be false, we know where to find him.
Citizens United makes it possible for the wealthy to fund lies anonymously, and people need to be cognizant of this fact. At this time, we can not trace their words back to their funding sources, so that they are protected from the consequences of spreading falsehoods. Some will argue that such expressions should receive constitutional protections. Aside from that argument, we can certainly say that such expressions are likely not credible at all, and they should carry little weight.
Finally, there is really no protection for anonymous speech which is false, deceptive, or negligent. And we need to know the identities of those who fund such speech. One rarely knows the identity of the man who cries fire in a crowded movie theater. If there was no fire, we need to find out who it was.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
October 13, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Jody
I had heard Justice Stevens recently say something like “With regards to freedom of speech, it needs to be understood that money is not speech.”
October 14, 2010 at 5:50 am
gnudarwin
I would like to clarify that I do not believe that money is speech, and far from it. Moreover, I would also like to amplify my point and say that it may be possible to reveal the names of anonymous doners if their organizations have broken the law. This would be a likely priority in some cases.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
October 14, 2010 at 10:54 am
Chuck Kottke
Well the answer is simple. Buy Karl Rove more donuts. That’s right – donuts. Or whatever his favorite food is – he’s obviously got an insatiable apatite for food, or power, or money, but I’m guessing food comes first, and judging from his jowls, he’s been hitting the snack bar pretty hard lately.
So give to Karl, give to his needs, keep him well stocked with all the glazed chocolate donuts he needs and deserves. Do it for your country, do it for those wealthy who need to have their voices heard anonymously in campaign ads, lest they be singled out for their generosity; do it for the grease & tallow industry. Keep the glaze in their eyes, and the arteries will soon follow. After all, it’s just free speech that he’s protecting, and he deserves all the goodies we can offer him.
Oh those frosted donuts are singing freely – mmm mmm! Come get more Karl, I’ll buy you as many as you like and then some!
November 18, 2010 at 10:43 pm
The public shaming of Anthony Kennedy
[...] Boat” sewer money six years ago, feel so liberated by Citizens United that they are now collecting and spending tens of millions of dollars without bothering to register as a political committee, [...]
January 8, 2011 at 1:09 am