Interest Groups Gain In Election Cash Quest

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Interest Groups Gain In Election Cash Quest
Analysis Shows Giving To Parties Has Dipped; Beyond 'Swift Boating'
By BRODY MULLINS
December 19, 2007; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- One of the defining features of the 2004 presidential campaign was the devastating attack on Sen. John Kerry by an obscure group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the years since, such independent political groups have only grown stronger, and they are poised to play an even bigger role in the 2008 elections. Political groups unaffiliated with the two major parties account for an increasingly large share of spending on federal campaigns -- 19% of the total in 2006, up from just 7% in 2000, according to an analysis of campaign-finance data by The Wall Street Journal. They now are horning in on crucial campaign activities once dominated by the parties, such as buying ads and getting out the vote.

In Iowa, independent groups are whipsawing voters with a range of conflicting messages. An organization called Common Sense Issues has funded automated phone calls backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and criticizing his chief Republican rivals. The Club for Growth, an antitax group, is working to defeat Mr. Huckabee with attack ads. On the Democratic side, an organization called the American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education has spent $250,000 on radio ads in Iowa backing Sen. Hillary Clinton. An environmental group called Friends of Earth Action is running ads against Sen. Clinton.

(snip)

The shift, largely the result of campaign-finance laws intended to curtail big-money donations to parties, could further polarize the American political landscape. Because the Republican and Democratic parties aim to appeal to broad swaths of the electorate, they tend to be moderating forces in politics. That isn't true of the independent groups, which range from the Sierra Club and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to fringe groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which disbanded after the 2004 election. They often pursue narrower agendas or causes further out on the political spectrum. The nonprofit groups are financed by wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups. Unlike the national parties, they face no limits on how much money they can take in from contributors. They often don't have to disclose their donors' names until months after an election -- if at all.


(snip)

There are several distinct classes of independent political groups, each taking its name from the section of the Internal Revenue Service code under which it is organized. Most are known as 527 organizations. Although 527 groups are recognized as political, they are prohibited from explicitly calling for the election or the defeat of candidates. Consequently, they often promote or attack candidates without instructing people to vote for or against them. Another class of independent groups is growing even faster -- and is flying further under the radar. These groups are organized under section 501c of the tax code, which gives tax-exempt status to nonprofit groups. One category, called "social welfare," is governed by section 501(c)4. Those groups can urge people to vote for or against a candidate -- so long as campaigning isn't their primary purpose, and they don't accept money from corporations or labor unions. Labor groups are governed by section 501(c)5; business groups by section 501(c)6. These 501(c) organizations don't have to disclose their donors.

Data from two nonpartisan organizations that track campaign finance -- the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics -- show that election-cycle spending by 527 organizations rose from $171 million in 2000 to $316 million in 2002 to $653 million in 2004. Spending dropped to $443 million for the 2006 midterm elections. Spending on midterm elections typically runs lower than on presidential elections.

(snip)


--T.W. Farnam contributed to this article.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119802611610438187.html (subscription)

[1corona4u]

1. That should be illegal. Period.