E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Senate Democrats decried the influx of millions in unregulated dollars in the 2012 elections, announcing Wednesday that they will hold hearings looking into the impact of super PACs.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrats' messaging chief in the Senate, announced that the Rules committee will begin hearings this month on super PACs.
Joined by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Al Franken (D-MN), Schumer pointed to Mitt Romney's victory in Florida's Republican primary as evidence of the outsize influence of super PACs. He then bashed Karl Rove-tied groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS for raising money by the millions without having to disclose all of its donors.
"It doesn't pass the smell test to say some of these groups aren't coordinated," Schumer said, pointing to the example of a super PAC in favor of Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, an erstwhile GOP presidential contender, which was funded by Huntsman's father.
A number of super PACs made their filings with the Federal Election Commission by midnight last night, a deadline that Schumer said was "laughable." The New York senator said it made more sense to disclose those records before voters participated in January's Republican primaries.
"We think the disclosure should be as instantaneous as possible. The voters deserve to know the ugly truth of whose behind these Super PACs," he told reporters.
Schumer also didn't spare Democrats, who also have used super PACs.
"No matter who does it, the system needs to be fundamentally changed," he said.
Using charts with Karl Rove's name on them, Schumer said the donations made in secret to non-profit groups were the most troubling. He pointed to the $33 million dollars raised by Crossroads GPS as reported in the FEC filings this week.
"This is a mystery as to who is giving the money. Could it be one person who gave $33 million dollars? Could it be somebody who might have foreign links? Or huge contracts with the government ? We have no idea," he said.
The senators placed the blame on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
"Everyone has the right to do it. No one is going to unilaterally disarm. So we're now forced into this system," Franken told reporters.
Whitehouse mocked the idea that Super PACs operate independently of the candidate. He said these donations lead to corruption.
"You cannot pretend that people who are giving millions of dollars in support of a candidate anonymously aren't communicating that to the candidate and aren't going to come back and expect some kind of pay and we will never know who they were and what they promised," he complained.
It's not just Democrats who are worried about the corrupting influence of these new, monied groups.
We have -- on both sides of the aisle -- these incredible amounts of money and I guarantee you there will be a scandal," Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) said last Sunday on Meet the Press. "There is too much money washing around politics, and it's making the parties irrelevant."
Schumer expects the Rules committee will hold hearings sometime in February to look at ways to make disclosure of donors more regular and to improve the coordination rules between outside groups and campaigns.
Leave a Comment:
Will Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Al Franken (D-MN) investigate Hollywood director Steven Spielberg and the Service Employees International Union? Both parties were reported as being among the big donors to a Super PAC supporting President Barack Obama.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10283095-spielberg-labor-union-are-obama-backers-pac-raises-less-than-gop?threadId=3334194&commentId=62061698#c62061698
While America presses the middle east and rest of the world to practice democracy, America dismantles it's own and creates an auction process instead.........May the US Supreme Court go to hell
I can't wait for the Senate committee hearing, where they call Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart to explain how Super Pacs really work, while fielding questions from John McCain and Al Franken.
In 2010, Rick Scott bought the Governors office in Florida. Will we repeat this disaster in 2012?
By the way, Schummer said BOTH parties were guilty of taking advatage of super PACs. So lay off the man why dont you!
It's not the corporations giving the money - it's our corrupt, greedy policians taking the money that's the problem. Both sides.
Made for America, President/ The best MONEY can buy. Come cnina come russia come saudi and columbia! Come all America's FOR SALE! Just call Grover Norquist he's your Agent in charge. real estate that is.
after this election there will be changes to the Super Pac crap but not until. The GOP wants every advantage to try and win back the White House.
It is about time somebody and I don't care if it is Dem or Repub's, it is shameful that so much money that we as tax payers give as tax breaks and subsidies through loopholes is being used to manipulate the political process. Just look at a comedian, Cobert, has raised $1 million on a basic joke to form a Super Pac, it is ridiculous this is being allowed, that WE are allowing it. Corporations are NOT people, the constitution was written to and for the American PEOPLE!
According to multiple press outlets and the U.S. Citizens Association independent investigations, the Obama 2008 Presidential campaign failed to identify the sources of millions of dollars of campaign contributions that appear to have been illegally accepted by the campaign. Various media reports have pointed to the unknown sources as having illegally come from outside the United States and exceeded the contribution limits that would require reporting donor information to the Federal Election Commission.
The FEC launched an audit of the Obama 2008 campaign in April of 2011, but no results of the investigation have been released to the public. According to reports in Roll Call, during the 2010 cycle, the Obama campaign led all organizations when it came to sending refunds to individual donors.
“The FEC claims these audits take three to four years, or even longer to complete. That’s unacceptable,” said Lance Davis, Executive Director of U.S. Citizens Association. “President Obama has been in full campaign mode for at least the last year. We’re in 2012 now. Is the Obama campaign still accepting questionable contributions and where are they coming from?” Mr. Davis continued.
Did any one notice that they are only talking about Republican super PACs?
So if it is a Dem PAC, they will get a pass?
No, you are wrong - both parties according to Schumer.
Phony politicians hearing on pacs. They don't mean anything if they were fair they would ban all pacs. Sick of the rich wanting to allow nobody else to run our country.
When I was young you did not have to ask anyone permission to participate in politics. You could pool your money with others who shared your views without donation limits or reporting requirements. It was understood that freedom of speech, press and assembly were the rights of flesh and blood citizens. Newspapers enjoyed the right to print and broadcasters the right to speak because they employed people. But people did not have to own newspapers, TV Stations or radio stations to print or speak.
However, Nixon and Watergate brought campaign laws based on protecting the public from the appearance of corruption.
Prior to President Nixon’s second term, some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled regional newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.
The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.
A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.
President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
The newly minted campaign laws should have chastised the 4th estate as well as Nixon. Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted corporate media from campaign laws and created the “State Approved Press”.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads anyway? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.
News corporations have exercised their power to destroy or pick the GOP candidate. They attempt a self fulfilling prophecy by stating Romney is the eventual Republican nominee, despite the fact he has not attracted more than 28% of conservatives. And the news destroyed Herman Cain's candidacy with unproven innuendo and attempted the same character assassination on Newt Gingrich. And media hosts have denied Buddy Roemer a podium at the GOP Presidential debates despite the fact he is for campaign reforms. Yet the media hypocritically judge the viability of a candidate by how much money he is able to raise while decrying the evil of money in politics, most of which flows to them to purchase campaign ads!
The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics is so hypocritical. Distributing political ads to the masses is the biggest expense of political campaigns. If the media were to carry political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.
The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The National Rifle Association purchased a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. Should citizens and citizens groups have to buy a radio station to enjoy freedom of speech or a newspaper to enjoy freedom of the press?
To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and citizens groups! People don’t lose their rights when they associate in groups, whether it’s a corporation, a labor union, a nonprofit organization or even a newspaper.
Before you insist on more people muzzling campaign laws watch this video: http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/33-sampson and read the Citizens Guide to participating in Federal elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Until campaign laws apply equally to all, we the people are the 99% and media princes, like Colbert, are the 1%.
If the media won’t defend people’s rights they may lose their own:
Newspapers Have No First Amendment Exemption from Political Spending Reporting Requirements
Eugene Volokh • September 8, 2011 5:46 pm
Because of this, it generally hasn’t been clear whether the media exemption was constitutionally mandated — whether a legislature could, if it wanted to, regulate newspapers’ expenditures related to political campaigns the same way it regulated other expenditures. But Olson v. City of Golden (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2011) held that such an exemption is not constitutionally mandated.
http://volokh.com/2011/09/08/newspapers-have-no-first-amendment-exemption-from-political-spending-reporting-requirements/
Buddy Roemer will not take a political contribution of more than $100/person. He's really the only candidate who gets NO coverage, can't participate in debates but makes the most sense! www.buddyroemer.com
http://realcampaignreform.org/babka/liberty_for.htm
Why is compulsory disclosure considered a good thing?
Nowadays, few people question the propriety of disclosure of campaign contributions. Even conservatives and some libertarians have come to the conclusion that we must know who is behind the Congressman, or who is funding a particular commercial. Some Americans believe that disclosure is essential to the proper operation of democracy.
Let's carry this premise to its logical conclusion.
How many Americans insist their "oughta be a law" requiring the media to divulge their "governmental sources?" Imagine the trouble Woodward and Bernstein would've had if they'd had to disclose who "Deep Throat" was.
How many people want government compelled disclosure of the names, addresses, vocations and employers of persons who "volunteer" for campaigns? After all, some people's time is quite valuable.
Or how many people believe we need to end the secret ballot? Is it possible that some people voting for particular candidates because they expect to receive special favors from the government if the candidate wins?
This could be done. After all, the secret ballot isn't required by the Constitution. During the colonial period many government officials were elected by voice or a show of hands. This practice didn't die out entirely until the 1860s. And paper ballots didn't become popular until early in the 19th century. At first, voters made their own ballots and brought them to the polls. Then political parties started printing ballots and the polling places became akin to an open auction. Ticket distributors would fight with each other and the elderly were scared away. And that's why we have secret ballots today -- to protect the voters from reprisals and threats of violence.
But shouldn't we also want to protect political donors from potential reprisals from candidates they didn't support, especially if the candidates the donors opposed are elected to office and have the power of government behind them?
This seems obvious, but for some reason we've gone the opposite way on financial disclosure. Why? Anonymous political documents predate the settling of our country. The first was a document written in the 1570s under the fictitious name Junius Brutus. In English it's titled A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. According to historians, this document played a role in the destruction of the Stuarts, then the royal family of Great Britain. And this document also influenced America's patriots.
There are other pre-revolutionary examples, including the story of John Peter Zenger, whose case was a precedent for the 1st Amendment freedom of the press and the concept of fully informed juries.
Another example was John Dickson, a colonial patriot who anonymously protested the preponderance of taxes by Parliament in his Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. Add to this list, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which was published with the byline "An Englishman."
But the best examples occurred during the debate over the Constitution itself. Publius, the pseudonym of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, wrote the Federalist Papers. And let's give equal time to "Brutus," "Federal Farmer," "Centinel," and "Cato" -- all of them took the anti-federalist position. (Too bad they lost.)
The list goes on, but the point is this: Government-compelled disclosure is unconstitutional and un-American.
Does disclosure have its place? Sure it does. Any campaign can choose to report its donors to the public and most probably would because the voters might want it (although there was no disclosure at all before the 1970s); and politicians tend to give voters what they want, whenever they can. Voluntary disclosure might even be more reliable because campaigns could hire companies like Price Waterhouse to provide validity to their disclosures. In a regulation-free atmosphere, campaigns most likely would compete with their opponents to provide the clearest disclosure. They might even subject their reports to independent audits. This would be in marked contrast to the obscure forms that are now filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Members of Congress just do not get it. Everone knows that Congress and the whole political system is corrupt. Helen Keller phoned in ... Even she knows that to have a hearing about the corruption in Congress / Washington is a joke!
We need to get back to a democracy of the people for the people... That way EVERYONE WINS!!! Rich, Middle Class, and Poor... End Crony Capitalism before we turn into a South American type country where the 1% own everything.. All the assest.. all the Politicans!!! Oh wait a minute... we are already there!!! End Corruption NOW!
Send a thank you letter to the five (5) Republican representatives on the Unsupreme Court for the destruction of Democracy in the United States of America!
Impeach Justice Thomas!
What a do-nothing, say-nothing SCJ. They oughta have a rule that if you don't contribute in a year on the Court - you're outa there!
Thomas has spent 20 years doing and saying NOTHING! (Geo Bush Sr pick!)
Suzq- you are just another ignorant liberal and a racist at that
Like most libs you probably don't even realize how many opinions he has written as a Justice. The following is from 2006
"In his 14 complete terms as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1991 through 2005, Clarence Thomas has written 327 opinions - majority, concurring and dissenting. Despite their consistency in showing him to be a formidable intellect and a staunch defender of the Constitution, his reputation among laypersons is not commensurate with his achievements."
The fact is that his opinions, often eloquent, reveal him as a thoughtful conservative who understands the role of a Supreme Court justice, the methodology of proper constitutional and statutory adjudication and the appropriate resolution of the many issues that have come to the Court during his tenure. An actual reading of those opinions quickly overcomes the unconscionable propaganda that Justice Thomas is a "lightweight."
http://tinyurl.com/48hgy9t
Disclosure is good, In Washington state, the signers of certain initatives did not want their name to be disclosed. Why because they were afraid that releasing their names would show certain churches had supported the initiatives. Hmmm. Their names were released.
Anyway I hope Steve Cobert will be called upon to testify at the Super Pac hearing.
Will they also include the liberal media as a superpac? It is the biggest superpac of all times and dedicated soley to the advancement of the Left agenda.
Whaaaaaaa!!! Whaaaaa!!!! WHaaaaaaa!!!! Whaaaaaa!!!!!
Your SuperPAC is doing more than my SuperPAC!!!! THAT's NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!!
WHaaaaaa!!! Whaaaaaa!!!! Whaaaaa!!!!!!!!
Mr. White Wash, Chucky Schumer, is doing an investigation? ROTFLMAO. I am certain any committee Chucky is on will be shredding documents about the liberal left. This joke from New York is nothing but a rabid ideologue whom the left calls out to cover up misdeeds and manufacture claims against opponents.
Good job white-washing Waco for Clinton, Chucky, and great job protecting Sandy Berger's theft of documents. I am certain with the media covering for you again you will do a great job for obama.
Chuck Schumer and the truth go to together like Adolf Hitler and Human Rights.
Well, well, well, Chucky Cheese wants a hearing on the power of the Super Pacs. If he is so concerned about corporate monetary influence on elections, why isn't he going after the unions who are giving an insane load of money to Obama and the Democrats?? Where did Obama's billion come from? Why aren't they looking into that?
Couldn't all these rich people hire american's instead of wasting money for or against people who aren't going to win?
$33 million would employ how many people?
1000?
I watched Casino Jack last night about Jack Abramoff and the lobbyists owning our government in the 90's. It looks like Jack was right they are still able to do what they did then only it seems with a Super Pac gave them a bigger Funnel. We still haven't learned and "For the People" should be changed to "For Themselves". George Washington warned against parties and we didn't listen. When are we gonna get smart and use what we can to let them know that this is gonna be a government for The People and use our right to petition with the Voice of the People and we want a responsible government that works for our best interest and not just theirs and their friends. I want to vote for someone not in a Party that will make sound judgements for Us and our children. I'm sick of voting for the lessor of evils and which crook gets paid. I feel disenfranchised as soon as the voting is done. What say you. lol
The Republican "super PAC's" pale in comparison to union money flowing to the Democrat party so if liberals in the Senate want to "investigate" then they better put everything on the table. They should start by going to opensecrets.org and looking at the "big donor" list which shows the top groups since 1989 and who they gave money to. Interesting that Democrats have out raised Republicans by 1/2 a billion dollars and almost every corporation gave close to 50-50 to both parties. The difference was unions and special interests groups so the "new" Republican Super PAC's are really just leveling the playing field. Here's the link if you're interested:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
More useless efforts! the Supreme court ruled on this, Demonrats hate anyone funding the Republicans! Unions are all Limited Liability corporations!!!!!! there is no difference between a Union and a Corp! lets see if the demonrats investigate Demonrat paks!!! i doubt it. Obama never published who donated last time! the demonrats love it one sided, and this time they are desperate.
Cut out ALL PACs, super or otherwise. We spend way too much money electing these clowns as it is. Makes you wonder why someone would millions upon millions to get a job that pays $400,000 plus benefits.