Misplaced Pages

#75924

46-557: In the United States, a political action committee ( PAC ) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives , or legislation . The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States . Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition (see political finance ). At

92-435: A 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink , Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue . A total of $ 415,784,148 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 214,580,543 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups and $ 201,203,605 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups. Some of these listings identify

138-541: A PAC according to the state's election laws . Contributions to PACs from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though these entities may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising. Union-affiliated PACs may solicit contributions only from union members. Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds. Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows: In its 2010 case Citizens United v. FEC ,

184-525: A candidate or candidate committee. The political action committee emerged from the labor movement of 1943. The first PAC was the CIO-PAC , formed in July 1943 under CIO president Philip Murray and headed by Sidney Hillman . It was established after the U.S. Congress prohibited unions from giving direct contributions to political candidates. This restriction was initially imposed in 1907 on corporations through

230-574: A candidate's character and fitness for office off limits to 527s specifically. In Carey et al. v. FEC – RADM James J. Carey, USN (ret), chairman of the National Defense PAC, along with the PAC and a prospective donor, brought suit after the FEC deadlocked on a 2010 Advisory Opinion Request (see AO 2010-20), in which the PAC sought permission to operate both an independent expenditure PAC and

276-690: A candidate, regardless of whether or not they contained "express advocacy". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this provision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission . Based on that decision, many persons urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to use its regulatory power to extend campaign finance laws to cover these groups. The Commission held hearings in April 2004 to determine whether or not 527s should be regulated under campaign finance rules, but concluded that

322-510: A candidate. Thus, organizations could run ads discussing candidates and issues without being subject to campaign finance restrictions, so long as they avoided such express advocacy. The McCain-Feingold law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, extended certain campaign finance limitations to broadcast advertisements run within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election if they mentioned

368-611: A central committee maintained by said PAC. Furthermore, it required PACs to file regular reports with the Federal Election Commission(FEC) disclosing anyone who has donated at least $ 200. The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional limits imposed on PACs by the legislature under First Amendment grounds in many cases, starting with Buckley v. Valeo . Throughout the past 30 years, campaign donations from PACs have been increasingly growing, with $ 333 million being raised in 1990 to $ 482 million in 2022. Even with

414-522: A clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents." 11 CFR 100.16(a). The term was first introduced in the Code of Federal Regulations in 2003. The Federal Election Commission defines an agent as someone who has "actual authority, either express or implied" to perform one or more of

460-435: A list of actions on behalf of a campaign. It stipulates that an otherwise independent expenditure could be invalidated if an "agent" does something as simple as suggesting an advertisement be made. To prevent this, some groups claim that they sequester staff months before an election. An organization making an independent expenditure must include a federally mandated disclaimer identifying the person or organization paying for

506-474: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink . A total of $ 303,309,245 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 178,397,267 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 117,112,322 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. Some of these listings identify

SECTION 10

#1732781106076

552-471: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink . A total of $ 439,709,105 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 307,324,096 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 132,385,009 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. *Joint Victory Campaign 2004

598-461: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic/liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue, Republican/conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink. A total of $ 171,045,165 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 121,665,587 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 49,379,578 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. Some of these listings identify

644-399: A radio station that gives free air-time so a group can run an ad is making a contribution. In recent years, a number of candidates have sought to bypass campaign finance rules by delaying their intention to run for office, instead forming so-called " exploratory committees ." Exploratory committees had been in existence well before the advent of super PACs , but are now increasingly used with

690-585: A traditional PAC that could make contributions to candidates and was subject to fundraising restrictions. Carey's victory in the court now allows organizations to operate both traditional and "Super" PACs. A February 2010 poll from the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to make expenditures on behalf of candidates during elections. Seventeen percent approve of

736-833: A way dominant parties can capture seats from other parties. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official's own campaign. However, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and other non-campaign expenses. In the 2018 election cycle, leadership PACs donated more than $ 67 million to federal candidates. Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," are unlike traditional PACs in that they may raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups to spend on, for example, ads overtly advocating for or against political candidates. However, they are not allowed to either coordinate with or contribute directly to candidate campaigns or political parties. Super PACs are subject to

782-471: Is a joint fund-raising committee run by America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Money raised by JVC is divided between these two beneficiaries. Combining receipts for these three groups would result in double-counting . Independent expenditure The Code of Federal Regulations defined independent expenditure as an expenditure for a communication "expressly advocating the election or defeat of

828-452: The 2018 election , the top ten PACs donated a total of $ 29,349,895 (directly, and via their affiliates and subsidiaries) to federal candidates: In the 2020 election , the top ten PACs donated a total of $ 28,276,448 (directly, and via their affiliates and subsidiaries) to federal candidates: In the 2022 election , the top ten PACs donated a total of $ 28,051,395 (directly, and via their affiliates and subsidiaries) to federal candidates: In

874-402: The 2024 election , the top ten PACs donated a total of $ 25,995,526 (directly, and via their affiliates and subsidiaries) to federal candidates: 527 organization A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C.   § 527 ). A 527 group is created primarily to influence

920-577: The Progress for America Voter Fund , and the Secretary of State Project . Internal Revenue Code section 527 was enacted as part of Public Law No. 93-625 on January 3, 1975. In the case of Buckley v. Valeo , the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to draw a limit on the extent to which campaign finance laws could regulate speech about politics. The Court's answer was that campaign finance laws could reach only party and candidate committees, organizations with

966-705: The Supreme Court of the United States overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political independent expenditures in political campaigns. Citizens United declared it was unconstitutional to prohibit corporations and unions from spending from their general treasuries to promote candidates or from contributing to PACs. It left intact these laws' prohibitions on corporations or unions contributing directly to

SECTION 20

#1732781106076

1012-555: The Tillman Act . The Smith–Connally Act extended its coverage to labor unions in 1943. A series of campaign reform laws enacted during the 1970s facilitated the growth of PACs after these laws allowed corporations, trade associations, and labor unions to form PACs. In 1971 the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) created rules for disclosure, which made it so all donations received by PACs must go through

1058-839: The 4,600 active, registered PACs, named "connected PACs", sometimes also called "corporate PACs", are established by businesses, non-profits, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs receive and raise money from a "restricted class", generally consisting of managers and shareholders in the case of a corporation or members in the case of a non-profit organization, labor union or other interest group. As of January 2009, there were 1,598 registered corporate PACs, 272 related to labor unions and 995 to trade organizations. Groups with an ideological mission, single-issue groups, and members of Congress and other political leaders may form "non-connected PACs". These organizations may accept funds from any individual, connected PAC, or organization. As of January 2009, there were 1,594 non-connected PACs,

1104-572: The Federal Elections Commission of illegal coordination between the groups and rival political campaigns. These formal complaints included: In 2006 and 2007 the FEC fined a number of organizations, including MoveOn and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for violations arising from the 2004 campaign. The FEC's rationale was that these groups had specifically advocated the election or defeat of candidates, thus making them subject to federal regulation and its limits on contributions to

1150-1213: The Senior Counsel at the Campaign Legal Center , Paul S. Ryan. He asserts that prior to the 2016 Presidential Primaries, " [Jeb] Bush , [Martin] O'Malley , [Rick] Santorum and [Scott] Walker [were] all raising funds above the $ 2,700 candidate limit, providing reason to believe they [were] violating federal law." Ryan argues, "[They] have actually crossed the threshold to become 'candidates' as defined in federal law, by referring to themselves publicly as candidates and/or by amassing campaign funds that will be spent after they formally declare their candidacies." Furthermore, by refraining from officially announcing their candidacies, they are essentially free to raise unlimited funds for their chosen super PAC, and both 'coordinate' with and guide that super PAC in any way they see fit. This allows potential candidates-to-be to drum-up support and publicity, as well as stockpiling funds for their nominated super PAC, well in advance of whichever campaign they're looking to contest. Some have argued that FEC regulations are regularly flouted through

1196-520: The Tillis missive." As Roarty and Goldmacher elaborate, "The restrictions that bar coordination between candidates and their allies only apply to explicit communication between the two sides—a loophole that has been exploited by speaking in public ever since the proliferation of outside organizations following the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling." In 2015, Jeb Bush and his dealings with his Right to Rise super PAC faced significant scrutiny due to

1242-568: The U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $ 1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Act). At the state level, an organization becomes

1288-506: The ad, and thus, contravened campaign finance coordination rules. Some have advocated for a rethink in campaign finance law, given the relative impunity with which candidates now act and disregard campaign finance rules. Attorney Ben W. Heineman Jr. wrote in The Atlantic that "making damning facts public will be necessary to present a case" that "unmasks the claim" of super PACs being independent of their chosen candidates. However, for

1334-466: The candidate. Although 527 organizations were in common use by the 1990s, in the wake of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , which limited the ability of political parties to raise money, 527s rose to much greater prominence and visibility. Swift Boat was one such group, which ran controversial and highly effective ads critical of the 2004 Democratic Party candidate, John Kerry . A reported $ 9.45 million came from just 3 private individuals. On

1380-399: The communication and stating that the communication was not authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are money, or their equivalent, that are given to someone to use. Candidates and groups then spend the money, or their equivalent, to pay for campaigns. The phrase "or their equivalent" is incorporated into definitions to account for other things of value. For example,

1426-505: The early primaries of his presidential campaign, Jeb Bush's Right to Rise super PAC produced a television advert using his brother, former President George W. Bush , to endorse him. When queried about the commercial, Jeb Bush protested that "[He] didn't know [his brother] was doing that" and was "righteous in making sure there's no coordination." Given the nature of their relationship, some have found it difficult to believe that Jeb Bush had no role or influence in recruiting his brother to make

Political action committee - Misplaced Pages Continue

1472-747: The election or defeat of a candidate or party. There are no upper limits on contributions to 527s and no restrictions on who may contribute. There are no spending limits imposed on these organizations. The organizations must register with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), publicly disclose their donors and file periodic reports of contributions and expenditures. Because they may not expressly advocate for specific candidates or coordinate with any candidate's campaign, many 527s are used to raise money to spend on issue advocacy and voter mobilization. Examples of 527s are Swift Boat Veterans for Truth , The Media Fund , America Coming Together ,

1518-418: The expenditures, and 15 percent of respondents said they were unsure. An October 2010 Bloomberg poll found that 47 percent of Americans say they would be less likely to support a political candidate if his campaign was supported by advertising paid for by anonymous business groups. According to the pollster, 41 percent said that it would not matter, and 9 percent said they would be more likely to back

1564-556: The explicit intention of giving candidates a head-start in their respective campaigns. Ostensibly, they're created as a means to "test the waters" of that potential candidate's electability; in reality, and today more than ever, it enables them to raise money above what is set out in the federal candidate contribution limits and restrictions (which stipulates no more than $ 3,300 per individual donor, and no corporate/union funds) until they've officially declared their candidacy. This behavior has been challenged by legal analysts, most notably by

1610-569: The fastest-growing category. Elected officials and political parties cannot give more than the federal limit directly to candidates. However, they can set up a leadership PAC that makes independent expenditures . Provided the expenditure is not coordinated with the other candidate, this type of spending is not limited. Under the FEC (Federal Election Commission) rules, leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, and can accept donations from individuals and other PACs. Since current officeholders have an easier time attracting contributions, Leadership PACs are

1656-472: The law did not cover these independent 527 organizations unless they directly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate or engaged in broadcast advertising mentioning within the 30- and 60-day windows specified by Congress in the McCain-Feingold law. Nevertheless, Federal Election Commission rulings after the 2004 election attempted to extend the reach of the law to advertisements which questioned

1702-475: The liberal side, contributor George Soros contributed $ 23.7 million to 527s, and Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance contributed another $ 23.2 million to 527s in 2004. Prominent 527s that supported Democrats included America Coming Together , MoveOn.org, and the Media Fund. Under federal election law, coordination between an election campaign and a 527 group is not allowed. The heavy spending of key 527 groups to attack presidential candidates brought complaints to

1748-420: The major growth, PAC contributions only made up 23% of the money raised by House candidates and only 10% for senate candidates, despite media coverage which tends to exaggerate contributions. Federal law formally allows for two types of PACs: connected and non-connected. Judicial decisions added a third classification, independent expenditure-only committees, which are colloquially known as "super PACs". Most of

1794-591: The major purpose of electing candidates, or speech that "expressly advocated" the election or defeat of candidates. The determination of whether a group had the major purpose of electing candidates depended, in turn, on whether "express advocacy" was the group's primary activity. In footnote 6 of the Buckley opinion, the Court limited "express advocacy" to words and phrases such as "Smith for Congress", "elect", "defeat", or other specific calls for action to vote for or against

1840-403: The organizations. Some of these listings identify a parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink , Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , neutral groups are not highlighted. Some of these listings identify a parent organization that has created

1886-493: The perception of apparent coordination. Alice Ollstein, writing for thinkprogress.org , clarifies, "Buried in the most recent round of FEC filings is evidence Bush's Right to Rise super PAC paid the firm Wisecup Consulting LLC at least $ 16,000 this April and May for 'political strategy consulting,' while the campaign paid the same firm about $ 60,000 for exactly the same service — despite the two entities being legally barred from any coordination." Moreover, after suffering setbacks in

Political action committee - Misplaced Pages Continue

1932-531: The publication of a freely-available memo on Tillis's website, which outlined his campaign's detailed advertising strategy. Purportedly 'intended' for donors, "It is just as easily read as an explicit wish list aimed at the inboxes of outside allies with whom he cannot otherwise legally communicate about strategy." Paul S. Ryan from the Campaign Legal Center noted he had "never seen anything like it," but "hastened to add he also saw nothing illegal in

1978-525: The same organizational, reporting, and public disclosure requirements of traditional PACs. A hybrid PAC (sometimes called a Carey Committee) is similar to a super PAC, but can give limited amounts of money directly to campaigns and committees, while still making independent expenditures in unlimited amounts. OpenSecrets maintains a list of the largest PACs by election cycle on its website OpenSecrets.org. Their list can be filtered by receipts or different types of expenses, political party, and type of PAC. In

2024-522: The selection, nomination , election , appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees (PACs), " Super PACs ", and political parties are "527s". However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for

2070-654: The time being, it seems as though tackling coordination in any meaningful way is unlikely. Even the Chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, Ann M. Ravel, admitted, "The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim. ... I never want to give up, but I'm not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It's worse than dysfunctional." In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Buckley v. Valeo ,

2116-573: The use of loopholes, and that a significant amount of independent expenditure is, in reality, coordinated. A piece written by Alex Roarty and Shane Goldmacher in the National Journal , and republished in The Atlantic , outlined just how "brazen" current attempts at coordination can be. Focusing on Thom Tillis , a Republican US Senator from North Carolina, and his 2014 Senate campaign's efforts to influence his allied super PAC, it details

#75924