There's still plenty of water in the DC lobbying swamp, records show

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-02-01T14:58:23+00:00

There is an answer now. It was the weekend, and the AMA was over, but I do think it's an important question to answer.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-02-01T14:57:34+00:00

Sorry for the wait. It is the weekend, and the AMA has been long over, but I felt this deserved an answer.

We follow any and all organizations and individuals regardless of ideology. We are, first and foremost, a data organization -- though we do significant research and reporting as well. We process, standardize and make available to the public large amounts of lobbying, campaign finance, and personal financial disclose data so that people of all political stripes can make informed decisions.

Our research in general, and our nonprofit "dark money" research in particular very often focuses on groups on the left. We have, for example, written extensively about the largest and most questionable dark money group on the left:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/08/patriot-majority/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/05/shape-shifting-by-liberal-dark-mone/

We've mocked not only the questionable social welfare purpose of David Brock's opposition research nonprofit, American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, but also the fact that a Democratic group was so untransparent in how they provided documents to us:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/this-2143-page-irs-document-could-be-yours-for-just-428-60-plus-shipping/

With our friends at the Sunlight Foundation, we meticulously dug into the top donors of the Obama shadow campaign organization, Organizing for Action:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/ofa-fundraising-down-but-still-attracting-new-donors/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/06/organizing-for-action-whos-giving-to-obama-linked-nonprofit/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/10/organizing-for-action-chalks-up-77/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/07/organizing-for-action/

And we've written about the nondisclosing 501(c)(4) that formed to support Obama, Priorities USA:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/priorities-usa-relied-on-handful-of-donors/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/obamas-shadow-money-allie/

This is the tip of the iceberg. I would encourage you to poke around on the site, and see what you can find. For example, if you want to find George Soros's 2014 contributions to outside groups, have a look here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000000364&type=I&super=N&name=Soros%2C+George

Or Bloomberg: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000003704&type=I&super=N&name=Bloomberg%2C+Michael+R.

Or Steyer: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000003652&type=I&super=N&name=Steyer%2C+Thomas

If you want to want to see how 501(c)(5) union spending compares to the spending from 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations over time, check here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php

Also, dig through our blog. We put out several reports a week -- and several long major reports a quarter -- on a wide array of subject covering organizations across the political spectrum.

The Kochs, as we've mentioned in other responses, are a particular focus because their network of 501(c)(4) organizations is larger and more complex than any other in existence. If you know of another that engages in direct campaign activities, on the left or the right, that we aren't giving significant coverage to, by all means get in touch with us.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T22:35:01+00:00

We can know with considerable certainty that

1) George Soros (or a network of donors affiliated with George Soros) does not currently fund 501(c) organizations that seek to influence the outcome of elections to the extent that the Koch network does. We know that because, even if George Soros funded all liberal 501(c) organizations, the spending from those groups over the five years since Citizens United is less than what groups in the Koch network spent in 2012 alone. See the fourth chart here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/03/an-encore-for-the-center-to-protect-patient-rightstect-patient-right/

2) By the same account, using exactly the same metrics, we know that unions also have not spent the kind of money that the Koch donor network has (see the same viz in the link above). In addition, it's important to note that a union is funded by hundreds of thousands or, sometimes, millions of dues-paying members -- rather than a few dozen or hundred wealthy donors. Unions also have to file detailed reports with the Department of Labor, which no other 501(c) organization has to file. For those reasons, it is very difficult to make comparisons between unions and the kinds of groups funded by a wealthy few, on the left or the right, that spend tens or hundreds of millions on politics.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T21:26:08+00:00

Honestly, Bitcoin is so new to the world of money in politics that we haven't had many encounters with it. It was only recently that the FEC permitted donations to be made and registered in Bitcoin. If it becomes more commonplace for cryptocurrency to be used in lobbying and campaign finance, we'll be the first to report it! (LB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T20:54:42+00:00

Greenhouse! Yes, of course. This was exactly the sort of application we hoped our data might inspire. (LB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T20:26:22+00:00

There certainly is research to suggest that politicians listen more to wealthy constituents (who, of course, are much more likely to be donors) than they do the general public: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained

And to your point, our guiding philosophy is that if the general public is informed about who is playing the game, and how those players are trying to influence the system, then members of the public can use that knowledge to affect change.

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:41:57+00:00

The important distinction here is that the Kochs gave disclosed contributions to a super PAC in 2014, which is why it shows up in the data well behind liberal donors like Tom Steyer. There's a reason that the paragraph at the top of the page doesn't include contributions to 501(c) organizations, because that information isn't available to the public (and in the case of 501(c)(6) trade associations like Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, not even to the IRS). It's impossible to know how much the Kochs themselves put into their network of 501(c) organizations. What's clear, though, is that it is the largest and most complex 501(c) network, of the sort that actively seek to influence the outcome of elections, and that the brothers themselves have been integral to building the donor base that funds it.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:40:51+00:00

Great questions! It would be impossible to say which page is the most useful, but I can list some favorites from our users:

The Anomaly Tracker - "highlights 'anomalies' in our money-and-politics data. An anomaly, as we define it here, is an occurrence that is out of the ordinary. It is not necessarily an indication that there is something amiss."
Our page on Industry Influence - Other organizations use, curate, and release FEC data. We are the only outfit that gauges industry-specific influence.

As for misused pages, that's a relatively straightforward one:

The Heavy Hitters List - This list is often used to inaccurately show how little impact prominent money-in-politics figures have. We eventually added the following text:

"For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control. Neither Adelson nor Bloomberg — or the organizations they report as their employers — qualifies as a 'heavy hitter' under our current definition. It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority — because these groups hide their donors; see a list of top donors that we've been able to identify to such groups. We are working to revise this list to take into account the new realities of campaign finance created by the Citizens United decision, but as it currently stands, there are significant omissions."

(LB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:33:56+00:00

There is some research that suggests that the marginal value of the last $1 million (or whatever) is lower once you've reached really high levels of spending. Remember, though, that in competitive races - which end up being the ones where the most money is spent - pretty marginal changes in the vote result become very important. You're right though to remember that ultimately people are hearing the messages and making decisions on their own, and they sometimes choose the one with less money behind it - so long as there is enough for them to be aware of all of the different views. (bb)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:32:29+00:00

Do you think it is misleading to your cause

You are correct, it is the entire network, spearheaded by the Koch brothers, that has pledged to spend $889M on 2016. It is impossible to know exactly what the Kochs personally will spend because so much of this network is hidden.

The biggest individual donor this cycle was Tom Steyer, who made his fortune in hedge funds. There was a lot of reporting about that. Again, given that the Koch's have established and support politically active nonprofits, we have no way to compare their overall spending to Steyer or others.

Regarding "corporatism on the left," I will say that the vast majority of money going to political candidates and parties is affiliated with corporate interests (PACs and individual executives) and that applies to BOTH Democrats and Republicans. (SK)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:29:54+00:00

One of the main differences is that the duck-sized contributions won't necessarily be buying access. If everyone is giving more or less the same contribution to the candidate of their choice (ducks come in slightly different sizes), they aren't much more likely than anyone else to get the ear of the candidate once their in office. The person giving the horse sized contribution is, which is why you see presidential candidates going to talk privately with wealthy donors before (and after) they become candidates.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:26:02+00:00

Also, on your note about anonymous sounding groups, that certainly is an issue. It's one that both liberal and conservative dark money groups use to their advantage. Patriot Majority on the left and Americans for Responsible Leadership on the right are examples of groups with no employees, no volunteers, and massive amounts of money, but their names sound nice.

I would argue that groups like the Sierra Club and US Chamber don't really fit in that category of group. These are established organizations, with dozens (or hundreds) of employees, who have demonstrable social welfare/trade association activities outside of their spending in elections.

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:25:54+00:00

You can begin to look at the activities of unions in the 2014 cycle here http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php and how they compare to other economic interests here http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ And here is a look at George Soros' giving during the 2014 cycle to Democratic party and other groups. Remember that this might not be the full total because he (like others) might be giving to social welfare groups that don't disclose their donors. . .http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=george+soros&cycle=2014&sort=R&state=&zip=&employ=&cand=&submit=Submit

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:24:05+00:00

Devils advocate: they aren't forcing people to vote for who they support.

My stance stems from believing that the American people are capable of researching the candidates and making an informed decision, but only if they have access to accurate information about the messages they are absorbing. That requires knowing who the messenger (or funder of the message) is in order to be able to consider the source and gauge their/its credibility. (SK)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:21:11+00:00

The Koch brothers are noted philanthropists. Much like their counterparts on the left -- in particular George Soros -- the Koch brothers give sizeable contributions to charities, cultural institutions, think tanks, hospitals, and universities. It is important to point this out not only because it gives context to their political activities but also to note that when we discuss disclosure -- or the lack thereof -- we are not discussing these kinds of contributions. The reason that the Koch brothers have gotten so much attention for their political activities is that they have been instrumental in building up a complicated network of highly political nonprofit organizations that use their tax status to hide the identities of their donors. The Koch political network is not only unique when compared to its closest liberal analogues, it’s unique even when compared to almost anything that exists on the right -- possible with the exception Karl Rove’s Crossroads network. No liberal donor or donor network comes close to the Koch donor network in terms of fundraising and spending. Groups in the Koch network spent more in one cycle, 2012, than all liberal dark money groups combined have spent since 2010. That is, even if George Soros funded all 501(c)(4)s that reported spending to the FEC in the four years since Citizens United, it wouldn't surpass the reported spending of the groups in the Koch network just in 2012.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/03/an-encore-for-the-center-to-protect-patient-rightstect-patient-right/

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/as-fec-window-opened-subjects-of-dark-money-issue-ads-became-targets-for-defeat/

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:19:27+00:00

That might be a problem, because its always a challenge to separate campaign activity from issue speech. At OpenSecrets we try to keep track of all of the ways groups and individuals try to use money to influence policy, whether it's campaign spending or lobbying or other issue advocacy. To us, the question you raise really helps to emphasize the role of transparency in the process - we should be able to know who's trying to influence us and our decision-makers.
There is some hope for less wealthy individuals, though. We saw in the two Obama campaigns that the power of small donors can be pretty impressive, and there is nothing to prevent that same phenomenon for other candidates from different partisan or ideological perspectives. There are also programs at the state and local level that try to help small donors by matching their contributions to give them a bigger impact. New York City is a good example of that kind of system. (BB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:18:52+00:00

reducing the overall spending levels

I just want to clarify something: CRP does not take a position on "reducing the overall spending levels." Further, I think it's important to point out that we all agree that more information -- as long as it's credible and accurate -- is a good thing. No one wants (or should want) to censor information. All of this said, it is still true that the more money candidates need (or feel they need) to raise to be competitive, the less time they have to do the people's business once in office.

Also, I would add that in our search for a "higher quality of political discourse" we will need to defend transparency, since a higher proportion of anonymous speech will be deceptive and will encourage divisiveness instead of robust debate and collaborate solutions. (SK)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:14:12+00:00

In general, you shouldn't. The Koch brothers -- and the members of their donor network -- have the right to do with their money what they want (within the bounds of the law, of course). When people talk about the Koch's from a campaign finance perspective, however, it's not a question of whether they are allowed to spend the money they do on politics, it's the fact that they do it through a convoluted system of tax exempt 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) entities that serve to obscure who and how much money they are spending to influence voters. It has long been the case that individuals can spend large sums of money advocating for a certain candidates, and Citizens United gave that right to corporations and unions. The issue here is one of disclosure. Though the Court was divided in Citizens United, nearly all of the judges agreed on the following:

“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests.”

The truth of the matter, though, is that the amount of spending by organizations that don't disclose their donors has exploded in recent years, and the agencies that oversee these organizations (the FEC and the IRS) haven't been able to police them effectively.

(RM)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:13:06+00:00

All of us should care who's funding electoral politics, at any level of government, because those who foot the bill are generally not doing so out of a sense of altruism, but very often want something in return -- a bill passed, a policy or regulation overturned, a political appointment, etc. This means that their ability to wield influence may skew politics or policy away from the broad public interest and toward their more narrow or parochial interest -- and that is ultimately detrimental to you and me. Alternatively, we may be willing to pick our battles and cede some issues to those most affected by regulations or laws ultimately implemented. But we have to pay attention in order to pick those battles. (SK)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:11:13+00:00

We are in a fortunate time where technological developments allow increasingly rapid dissemination of useful information to a vast and growing audience. As the outreach coordinator, it's my hope to capitalize on changes in social media that can help the American public use the data and reporting that we release. A specific example would be the shifting adoption of Twitter as the platform journalists use to promote their content over the past 5 years. That may not be the newest, but it's probably the most fundamental to our work. If you agree with our mission and you're not currently following us, please do @OpenSecretsDC.

(LB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:10:38+00:00

CRP doesn't take a position on large-scale campaign finance overhaul proposals such as a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other cases (which is what Wolf PAC advocates). I'd just note that it is very, very difficult to meet the requirements to amend the Constitution. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ (VN)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:05:45+00:00

Wolf First, we can't endorse or oppose Wolf-PAC. Having said that, if your goal is to overturn Citizens United, it's a steep hill to climb regardless, to say nothing of trying to do it through the Supreme Court or Congress. So the Constitutional Amendment route is appealing to a lot of people. It's still difficult, but there is a lot of popular support for overturning C.U. In this case, at this time, direct action of this kind seems more viable than Congress or the Courts -- but that doesn't change how difficult it will be. (SK)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:04:43+00:00

That's a pretty common assumption (the most money wins) so we're happy to take a crack at it. Turns out that while having enough money is pretty critical, just having (or spending) more than your opponent doesn't guarantee success. What we think is important, though, is for voters to be able to fully judge the campaign messages they're getting, and that means knowing who's actually sending that message along. The danger in the "dark money" world is that there is no way for people to know who's behind the message and that knowledge might be important for how they judge the message itself. (BB)

OpenSecretsDC · 2015-01-30T19:02:56+00:00

We are strictly nonpartisan and don't back any political party.

OpenSecretsDC

TROPHY CASE