5 Wealthy Donors Contribute to 25% of Super PAC Money

A USA TODAY analysis finds that five wealthy people, led by Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons and Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, have contributed nearly 25% of all money donated to the super PACs raising unlimited money to back candidates in this year’s presidential race.

Those donations have helped new Republican-leaning outside groups out-fundraise Democratic-friendly super PACs by a large margin.

“Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine. “Super PACs have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda.”

The largest super PAC donor of the 2012 election is Harold Simmons. He and his holding company, Contran, gave $12 million to Karl Rove affiliated super PAC American Crossroads, as well as $2.2 million to three super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates. Simmons also contributed $3 million dollars to “Swift Boat” ads in 2004, challenging then presidential candidate John Kerry’s Vietnam War record.

Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, gave $10 million to Winning Our Future, a super PAC aiding former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

In a Forbes magazine article, Adelson said he is willing to donate an additional “$10 million or $100 million” to aid Gingrich.

“I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as along as it’s doable, I’m going to do it,” Adelson said.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, donated $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty, a super PAC helping Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Thiel, a libertarian, gave $70,000 to a 2010 ballot initiative in California to  legalize marijuana.

Thiel is the single largest donor to Endorse Liberty, which has spent more than $3 million, mostly on Internet ads, to advance Paul’s candidacy.

“Men and women who want freedom and growth should take action,” he said. “A good place to start is voting for Ron Paul.”

Since January 1st, Houston home builder Bob Perry has donated $3.6 million to super PACs, including $2.5 million to American Crossroads.

He has supported Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty in the past, but last year donated $1 million to a pro-Romney super PAC.

No Democratic donors rank as high as the top donors to Republican super PACs.

Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC backing Obama’s re-election, collected $2 million last year from Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. However, the super PAC raised just shy of $59,000 in January, a fraction of the $27.2 million raised last month alone by five leading GOP super PACs. The biggest donation to Priorities USA Action last month was $50,000 from John Rogers, CEO of Ariel Investments and one of Obama’s closest friends.

Russ Feingold on Obama Super PAC Reversal: “It is a dumb approach”

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ripped President Obama and his re-election team on Tuesday morning for reversing themselves on their previous criticism of super PAC money and instead embracing unlimited cash from special interest groups and their influence in politics.

“It is a dumb approach,” Feingold said in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. “It will lead to scandal and there are going to be a lot of people having corrupt conversations about huge amounts of money that will one day regret that they went down the route of what is effectively a legalized Abramoff system.”

“I also think it guts the president’s message and the Democratic Party’s message,” he added. “We are doing very well right now. The president is doing brilliantly. This is no time to blunt that message by starting to play this game. I think people will see it as phony that Democrats start playing by Republican rules. People will see us as weak and not being a true alternative and just being the same as the other guy. And as I have said before, to me this is dancing with the devil.”

One of the few vocal proponents of strict campaign finance rules, the former senator offered a similar denunciation when some of the president’s former aides first set out to form a super PAC, setting up the group that stands to benefit most from the Obama campaign’s new policy, Priorities USA Action.

One of the founders of that group told The Huffington Post that the campaign’s new approach to super PACS will be to continue to publicly disapprove of their existence while simultaneously encouraging donors to help fund them. The blatant hypocrisy of this strategy is lost on them as they say it’s simply a recognition of modern political realities.

“As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama,” said Bill Burton. “We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort.”

Aides to the president’s re-election campaign have pointed to the sucess that Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has had in taking down Romney’s primary opponents. They argue that to simply accept the same fate would constitute campaign suicide.

“I’m sure super PACS have had some role [in damaging former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's candidacy],” Feingold said of the latter point. “But the fact is that Romney’s best advantage is he has terrible opponents. It’s true. If these people were even remotely credible I don’t think all the money in the world would help. It’s that he has complete duds as opponents who people know can’t beat the president.”

Feingold is obviously not persuaded by the Obama campaign’s argument.

“The president is wrong to have embraced the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United and that’s what you’re doing when you start using and consorting with super PACs. They can raise unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals and corporations and often they can do it in total secrecy,” he said. “I am a supporter of the president. I will continue to support the president. But on this one I couldn’t disagree more.”

Obama Campaign Follows Republican Lead on Super PAC Money

President Obama’s position on Citizens United and big money Super PACs has been consistent from day one. He is against it, that is until he is for it. The Obama campaign has announced that in order to compete with Republican presidential candidates they must start raising cash for Democratic groups.

“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote in an e-mail to supporters announcing the move.”Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PACs. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.”

The decision was supposedly made after new FEC filings revealed that conservative groups raised more money than Democratic groups by a four to one ratio. In recent weeks one Republican donor alone, Sheldon Adelson, has given over $10 million to a Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney’s Super PAC raised $30 million in 2011, while a Democratic Super PAC founded by former Obama aide Bill Burton, Priorities USA, raised only $19 million.

Under the new policy, White House officials will now attend fundraising events for Priorities USA, although the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be involved in the effort themselves.

“Supporting Priorities USA means that our side will not concede the battles on the air in the months to come, but we continue to believe that this election will be won on the ground,” Messina wrote. “Super PACs haven’t opened offices. They haven’t hired organizers. They haven’t registered voters. They haven’t knocked on doors or made the kind of personal contact with voters that we know is the single most effective way to persuade people and turn them out on Election Day.”

In 2008, Obama reneged on a pledge to accept federal campaign funds rather than raise unlimited amounts in the general election, a decision that ultimately allowed him to massively outspend rival John McCain.

The full announcement from Messina is below:

Benjamin —

I wrote something for our blog about our decision to support Priorities USA, the Super PAC that can help neutralize the avalanche of special-interest spending to defeat President Obama. Every supporter should read it; it’s pasted below.

I just want to add something for you specifically about your role in all of this.

We decided to do this because we can’t afford for the work you’re doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads.

It’s a real risk.

In 2011, the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney raised $30 million from fewer than 200 contributors. Ninety-six percent of what they’ve spent so far, more than $18 million, has been on attack ads. The main engine of Romney’s campaign has an average contribution of roughly $150,000.

That’s why it’s up to us — the grassroots organization — to win this election where we have the real advantage, and that’s on the ground. More than 1.3 million Americans have already donated. Our average donation is $55, and 98 percent are $250 or less.

The stakes are too important to play by two different sets of rules. If we fail to act, we concede this election to a small group of powerful people intent on removing the President at any cost.

If you can volunteer, please sign up now:

http://my.barackobama.com/Volunteer-for-2012

If you can give, please give now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Donate-for-2012

Thank you,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

———

We will not play by two sets of rules
By Jim Messina

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to a new wave of so-called Super PACs — non-candidate political committees that can receive and spend unlimited money from special interests. For the first time, these committees could accept money from corporations, not just wealthy individuals.

The decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

It’s a trend the President has fought against, coming into office with a mission to limit special-interest influence in Washington. He put in place the most sweeping ethics reforms in history to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. And he’s overseen the most open administration ever — reversing Bush-era policies designed to limit Freedom of Information Act requests and disclosing White House visitor records so that Americans can see how their government works.

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action — by constitutional amendment, if necessary — to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

Last week, filings showed that the Super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney’s campaign raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money for this group, which is run by some of his closest allies.

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President — along with “nonprofits” that also aren’t required to disclose the sources of their funding — have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PACs. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won’t be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President’s campaign.

But here’s what this doesn’t change: the fact that ordinary people stepping up to take control of the political process is essential to our strategy.

This decision will help fill a hole on our side. But it’s only one part of the overall effort.

Supporting Priorities USA means that our side will not concede the battles on the air in the months to come, but we continue to believe that this election will be won on the ground. Super PACs haven’t opened offices. They haven’t hired organizers. They haven’t registered voters. They haven’t knocked on doors or made the kind of personal contact with voters that we know is the single most effective way to persuade people and turn them out on Election Day.

And this is where we have the advantage. It will be up to us — the grassroots organization, funded by an average donation of $55 — to win this election.

It’s a point of pride that 98 percent of all our donations are $250 or less. Mitt Romney won’t reveal that number about his own campaign, but filings show that just 9 percent of the Romney campaign’s money in the fourth quarter of last year came from people giving less than $200.

Americans across the country are supporting the most extensive neighbor-to-neighbor, grassroots organization in history.

It’s my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won’t be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans.

 

So the President feels that all this special interest cash is ruining our politics, so in an effort to fight all this special interest cash he needs to get his hands on as much special interest cash as he can? The spin machine is fully engaged and working overtime.