Stealthy political nonprofits reigned in the 2010 elections
Super PACs-Shmooper PACs, reports iWatch News’ Michael Beckel:
"While super PACs were cast as the big, bad wolves during the last election, the groups were outspent by “social welfare” organizations by a 3-2 margin, a trend that may continue amid reports that major donors are giving tens of millions of dollars to the secretive nonprofit groups."
A joint investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics has found that more than 100 nonprofits organized under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code spent roughly $95 million on political expenditures in the 2010 election compared with $65 million by super PACs.
Read the joint report on iWatch News or OpenSecrets Blog.
Comments
Reading the fine print
What the hell is a "social welfare" non-profit? Hmmm. Let me think. How about the NRA?
I can't even begin to find a methodology statement, but the implication that "social welfare" is the proper categorization of non-profits doesn't pass the smell test.
From the report:
New York's AG investigating 501(c)4s incl. Chamber of Commerce
From an article of these groups and their influence from the New York Times:
tions.
"But the sources of that money are largely obscured from public view by mazes of transactions between allied groups and laws that allow tax-exempt organizations — unlike candidates and “super PACs” — to shield their donors..."
Martha Brock
Some social welfare groups are notorious...
Others not so much. Here's a story that caught my eye today about Karl Rove's 501 (c)4:
Obama’s Lawyer Demands Information on Group’s Donors
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
"The lawyer for President Obama demanded on Tuesday that Crossroads GPS disclose its donors, saying in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission that the group is plainly a “political committee” subject to federal reporting requirements.
In the complaint, obtained by The New York Times, Robert F. Bauer, the campaign’s chief counsel, writes that the group — founded by Karl Rove, among others — can no longer shield the identity of its donors by defining itself as a “social welfare” organization.
Martha Brock