Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995

donate.jpg (7556 bytes)
Make a secure online contribution
Go to to post comments

Follow Us on Twitter

Get email updates:

RSS Feed
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to Google

contactContact Us

Order Now


Age of Obama
Barack Obama's presidency

Bush End Game
George W. Bush's presidency since 2007

Bush - Second Term
George W. Bush's presidency from 2005-06

Bush - First Term
George W. Bush's presidency, 2000-04

Who Is Bob Gates?
The secret world of Defense Secretary Gates

2004 Campaign
Bush Bests Kerry

Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Gauging Powell's reputation.

The 2000 Campaign
Recounting the controversial campaign.

Media Crisis
Is the national media a danger to democracy?

The Clinton Scandals
Behind President Clinton's impeachment.

Nazi Echo
Pinochet & Other Characters.

The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics.

Contra Crack
Contra drug stories uncovered

Lost History
America's tainted historical record

The October Surprise "X-Files"
The 1980 election scandal exposed.

From free trade to the Kosovo crisis.

Other Investigative Stories



Rove's Money Tramples Democracy

By Kevin Zeese
September 28, 2010

Editor’s Note: As expected, last January’s Citizens United ruling by five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to special interest money inundating the November elections.

However, there are still laws that pertain to the new political groups being created to exploit this money-in-politics opening and those laws are being widely flouted, says election activist Kevin Zeese in this guest essay:

In this first post-Citizens United election, voters are the victims of a crime against democracy that the government seems unable, or unwilling, to stop despite it occurring right before our eyes.

Organizations are being set up under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code to manipulate the outcome of the mid-term elections. A 501(c)(4) is a lobbying organization that is not allowed to spend most of its time on electioneering.

Yet, these new organizations are spending massively on advertising for and against candidates, developing data bases of voters, creating messages for candidates and planning get-out-the-vote drives. These activities make them “political committees” that should obey election laws, including making the names of donors public.

Thus, political operatives, such as Karl Rove, are misusing the tax laws by creating organizations, like  American Crossroads, that use anonymous and unlimited donations from corporations and the super-rich to overwhelm the political process with attack ads against disfavored candidates.

As the New York Times reports, “Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies would certainly seem to the casual observer to be a political organization: Karl Rove, a political adviser to President George W. Bush, helped raise money for it; the group is run by a cadre of experienced political hands; it has spent millions of dollars on television commercials attacking Democrats in key Senate races across the country.”

The central legal issue is whether groups like Rove’s American Crossroads are “political committees” under federal election laws. Federal law defines a political committee as any group that receives and spends more than $1,000 “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” [See 2 U.S.C. §§431(4), (8)(A) and (9)(A).]

In Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court defined the term “political committee” to encompass organizations that are either “under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.” [Emphasis added.]

American Crossroads and similar organizations were set up to influence the outcome of the mid-term elections and take advantage of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision last January that opened the door to unlimited donations.

But these groups meet the two-part test for being a “political committee”: (1) its “major purpose” is to influence candidate elections and (2) it receives and spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing federal elections.

The New York Times describes the legal test for 501(c)(4)s – or “the rule of thumb” – as “more than 50 percent of a 501(c)(4)’s activities cannot be political.”

“But,” the Times reported, “that has not stopped Crossroads and a raft of other nonprofit advocacy groups like it — mostly on the Republican side, so far — from becoming some of the biggest players in this year’s midterm elections, in part because of the anonymity they afford donors, prompting outcries from campaign finance watchdogs.”

In the Citizens United decision, while striking down restrictions on spending by groups, such as corporations, seeking to influence elections, the Supreme Court upheld election law provisions that required disclosure of the source of electoral-related funding.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, described the benefits of such disclosure to shareholders of the corporation as well as to voters writing:

“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 First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

The wealthy using front groups for secret donations is not new. It is a strategy perfected by a variety groups and has been on steroids in the post-Citizens United electoral world.

Even before the Supreme Court decision, the Chamber of Commerce was one of the leaders in this approach. In past years, it especially focused on affecting the outcome of state supreme court races.

We’ve been highlighting this at In one case, the courts, after five years of litigation, required disclosure of campaign donors for a Chamber front group.

The Ohio Elections Commission ruled that a Chamber of Commerce front group that attacked an Ohio Supreme Court Justice was required to disclose its donors under Ohio law. Three courts upheld that decision, and all the corporate donors were named. The Chamber is a major player in this year’s election activity as well.

The New York Times highlighted the work of another front group with a nice-sounding name, “Americans for Job Security.”

“‘Americans for Job Security has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country,’ the staff of the Alaska Public Offices Commission said in a report last year,”  according to the Times.

The group spent $6 million in the primary season, and is about to spend $4 million in the general election attacking Democratic candidates. The Times reported the close relationship between this group and American Crossroads describing how they sublet from the Republican “Crossroads Media, whose other clients include the national Republican Party [and] the Republican Governors Association.”

In the case of Rove’s American Crossroads, voters would very likely benefit from knowing the sources of millions of dollars in contributions. American Crossroad’s sister organization, a 527 political action committee, recently reported its sources of funds. The reports indicate that American Crossroads 527 is funded almost entirely by billionaires.

As Salon reported, “In August, American Crossroads raised $2,639,052. Fully $2.4 million of that -- or 91 percent -- came in the form of gifts from just three billionaires.” Open Secrets reported that these donors come from the insurance industry, military industrial complex and oil and gas industry.
These anonymous donor groups are swamping the Democrats.

Bloomberg News reported, “Republican-leaning groups that don't disclose their donors are raising and spending millions of dollars on the US congressional elections, helping make up for the party's fundraising deficit. Five organizations alone reported spending more than $5 million since Aug. 1 on so-called electioneering communications, compared with less than $200,000 for Democratic-leaning groups, Federal Election Commission data show.”

The Associated Press described these groups as "The Republicans' shadow party” and because of the anonymous donors said they were “basking in the shade.”

American Crossroads’ “two affiliated groups led by a blue-chip cast of Washington Republican strategists have raised a combined $32 million so far this year, using new freedom from fundraising restrictions to create a parallel and unofficial Republican campaign to defeat Democrats in November,” the article said.

It is obvious to anyone who looks at these groups that their primary purpose is electing candidates, not engaging primarily in issue lobbying.

Politico described American Crossroads as “part of a wave of big-donor-funded groups on the right that have either launched or ramped up this year in an effort to boost expected Republican gains in the critical midterm elections.”

Again, their obvious purpose is to elect candidates. Politico said “the groups -- including American Action Network, which shares a downtown Washington office with the Crossroads groups, as well as Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- aim to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

“Some of the groups also intend to take advantage of a January Supreme Court decision that loosened laws governing what types of contributions can be used to air election ads directly targeting candidates.”

Efforts to solve these problems with new disclosure legislation fell one vote short last week in the Senate, with Republicans refusing to let the measure come to a vote. The campaign finance bill would have required nearly all organizations airing political ads to disclose their top donors and the amounts they paid.

It would have also banned a variety of political activity by entities holding a government contract worth more than $10 million and corporations where foreigners own more than a majority of voting shares.

Thus far, the Department of Justice, Federal Elections Commission and the Internal Revenue Service have been unwilling to take action to hold these organizations accountable. However, concerned citizens have taken the following steps:

- Our watchdog campaign, Protect Our Elections, has put out rewards of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Karl Rove and Tom Donohue, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce.

- On Aug. 4, we received a letter from a purported Chamber of Commerce insider who compares Tom Donohue to Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon and Bernie Maddoff. The insider alleges fraud, campaign finance violations and financial impropriety.

In a letter on behalf of our coalition, I urged the FBI and DOJ to conduct an investigation of Tom Donohue and the Chamber based on this letter.

- We have requested the Department of Justice investigate the “shadow RNC,” American Crossroads. In a letter on behalf of the coalition, I suggest formation of a campaign finance task force that investigates these groups, sets up a tip line to encourage information on violations of law, requires preservation of records and monitors their activities.

- We have urged the Federal Elections Commission to find that these groups are doing the work of a political party and issue an opinion that applies campaign finance limits to their actions.

- We have gotten the grassroots involved asking them to write the DOJ to investigate American Crossroads and similar groups and to write their legislators urging an investigation.

For now, the best antidote to this crime against democracy is for voters to be alert.

Voter beware” needs to be the thought when advertisements are seen from advocacy groups during this election season. And voters should warn other voters that there is an ongoing crime against democracy and they should be wary of political advertising.

Kevin Zeese is executive director of Prosperity Agenda (www.ProsperityAgenda.US) and spokesperson for the Protect Our Elections coalition (

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

homeBack to Home Page is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication.

To contribute, click here. To contact CIJ, click here.