Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (189)

PLAYS: (1502)

Embed

Watch Big Sky, Big Money, an investigation with Marketplace on PBS.

By Kim Barker, ProPublica, and Rick Young and Emma Schwartz, Frontline Oct. 29, 2012

This post was co-published with PBS' Frontline.

The boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled "Montana $ Bomb."

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates' strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal "coordination" between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

"My opinion, for what it's worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns," said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado.

The boxes were examined by Frontline and ProPublica as part of an investigation into the growing influence on elections of dark money groups, tax-exempt organizations that can accept unlimited contributions and do not have to identify their donors. The documents offer a rare glimpse into the world of dark money, showing how Western Tradition Partnership appealed to donors, interacted with candidates and helped shape their election efforts.

Though WTP's spending has been at the state level, it's best-known nationally for bringing a lawsuit that successfully challenged Montana's ban on corporate spending in elections, extending the provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision to all states.

The tax code allows nonprofits like WTP to engage in some political activity, but they are supposed to have social welfare as their primary purpose. As reported previously by ProPublica and Frontline, when WTP applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status, it told the IRS under penalty of perjury that it would not directly or indirectly attempt to influence elections — even though it already had.

The group is now locked in an ongoing dispute with Montana authorities, who ruled in October 2010 that the nonprofit should have registered as a political committee and should have to disclose its donors. WTP sued. A hearing is set for March.

In the meantime, the group has changed its name to American Tradition Partnership, reflecting its larger ambitions. This month, it sent Montana voters a mailer in the form of a newspaper called the Montana Statesman that claimed to be the state's "largest & most trusted news source."

Continue reading »

ProPublica

Here's our latest explainer video, on the storied history of money in politics. Lyrics follow.

Act I: Brown Paper Bags

"I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life, I have never profited [from public service]. I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon)

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "I don't like all the influence of money in politics." (Mitt Romney)

When people think of Watergate they think of a break-in But they don't mention the money that Nixon was taking From wealthy donors to help him get reelected Nixon paid them back in favors just like they expected

To battle corruption Congress passed a new law Capping contributions to a candidate's haul The source of the donations had to be disclosed too And the FEC was formed to enforce the new rules

Some who felt the law went against the Constitution sued Saying limits on money limited free speech too So the courts kept the cap on how much you can donate But said spending was unlimited by an outside group or candidate

That meant no more spending limits to promote a cause Or to point out a rival campaign's flaws So while candidates once snuck around with brown paper bags From then on they raised money publicly or left it to PACs

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "I don't like all the influence of money in politics." (Mitt Romney)

Act II: Soft Money

"We should also curb the role of big money in elections by capping the cost of campaigns…" (Bill Clinton)

In the 80s and 90s, there was a new gimmick: "Soft money" that's disclosed but had no limits It's supposed to cover each party's expenses But guys like Clinton used it to help their election chances

There was just one problem, Clinton's party was broke So he asked for more money every time he spoke And in return for the 100 million dollar cash-in He let donors use the Lincoln Bedroom to crash in

Then the "scandal and reform" cycle happened again And legislation was proposed by Feingold and McCain It capped donations to parties, ending soft funds And banned corporate/union issue ads right before elections

But with each new reform comes new loopholes Tax exempt "527s" arose Because they weren't explicit about whom they supported Many still raised money without limits to thwart them

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "The rules are what they are…" (Jay Carney)

Act III: Super PACs and Non-Profits

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests." (Barack Obama)

But the most outside money was yet to be spent Some argued spending limits broke the first amendment "Corporations and unions are entitled to free speech" They took it to court, the Supreme Court agreed.

Super PACs can raise as much money as they want They can also use union and corporate funds The only rule is they cannot coordinate With a specific party or a specific candidate

But reform opponents weren't quite done yet They found new uses for 501(c)(4) non-profits Which are a lot like Super PACs with more mystery They haven't had to disclose donors ever in history

Whether Republican or Democrat you might believe That spending limits jeopardize our freedom of speech But with each new cycle of deregulation More money is being injected into our elections

Political Ad Data Comes Online 2014 But It's Not Searchable

by Justin Elliott ProPublica, Aug. 2, 2012, 2:38 p.m.

After a bruising months-long fight between media corporations and the Federal Communications Commission, a government website came online today that will feature political ad data from television stations around the country.

This means that detailed files about political advertising 2014 which show who is buying political ads, how much they are paying, and when the ads are running, among other information 2014 will finally be available online. In the past, those interested in the files, which are by law public, had to travel to stations to get physical copies.

Though the new system is far from perfect, it will likely give the public and journalists a new window into how an expected few billion dollars are spent on political ads on local television this election cycle.

For now, only the affiliates of the top four broadcast networks in the top 50 markets will have to upload their political files to the FCC site. (The Sunlight Foundation has a map of the missing markets here.) All broadcasters will have to start complying in July 2014.  And the rule is not retroactive for political ad data 2014 so the site will only have information on political ad buys going forward.

The FCC requires broadcasters to upload information on political ad purchases "as soon as possible, which the Commission has determined is immediately absent extraordinary circumstances."

So what can we find on the new site? So far, not very much. Few broadcasters have uploaded files. But there are a few examples of what we'll get more of in the coming weeks.

Here, for example, are the files posted by WCPO, the ABC affiliate in Cincinatti. If you navigate to the "Federal" folder, then the "President" folder, then the "Obama" folder, you will find this contract (.pdf) for an ad buy the campaign made this week.

You can see that GMMB Inc., a Democratic ad firm in Washington that works with the Obama campaign, paid a total of $67,110 for three days worth of ads on the station this week. The ads were targeting the 35 demographic and ran on shows including Jeopardy and the Jimmy Kimmel Show. The filing does not make clear which specific ad was run.

The new system has a few serious limitations.

It is difficult to get an overall picture of spending by a single campaign, super PAC, or other outside group. You can only search by station name, network affiliation, or channel number, not by, say, typing in the name of the political campaign or outside group that bought an ad. I asked the FCC about this and an agency official who declined to be named said that "plans are to have a search function shortly but the scope is yet undetermined."

Then there's the fact that, as we've previously noted, the FCC declined to require broadcasters to upload files in a single format. That means that it won't be easy to aggregate data and analyze it in volume. That's in contrast, for example, to federal election filings, which are uploaded in a single, so-called "machine-readable" format that can be analyzed with computers.

The head of the FCC's media bureau has said that putting the files in a single format is a "long-term goal."

The new FCC website is also still under construction. The "Help" section, for example, is blank. And a page for developers also appears incomplete.

Another part of the public file that is worth keeping an eye on requires broadcasters to post "a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors" of any entity that pays for ads or programming on a "political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance." This could come in handy when, as often happens around Election Day, opaque outside groups are created and start buying ads.

It's also worth noting that there's a range of other non-political information from broadcasters' public file that will be going online, including: information on who owns a station; an Equal Employment Opportunity file describing the racial makeup of a station's employees; a map showing where a station's signal reaches;  descriptions of children's programming on the station; and a range of other information. 

ProPublica launched a project earlier this year, Free the Files, to get readers to go to TV stations and send in political files to be posted on our site. Stay tuned for more coverage of the FCC and political ad spending. 

Everybody is now talking about the student debt crisis, but nothing is being done about it. Thanks in large part to the great public amplifier of the Occupy movement, this year’s presidential contenders have been forced to embrace student loan reform as a talking point in their respective campaigns. But the debt relief being pushed by the Obama administration is a token gesture, aimed at getting some traction on the youth vote–especially the more disillusioned or alienated student constituencies. Recent bills introduced in Congress–Student Loan Forgiveness Act (H.R. 4170) and the Private Student Bankruptcy Fairness Act (H.R. 2028)–have zero chance of passing in anything like their current form. Practically speaking, no reform program of any substance is on the legislative horizon, least of all one that would regulate the predatory lending practices of Wall Street banks.

The truth is that student debt relief is too important to be left to elected officials. They are chronically dependent on the financial backing of the lending industry, and are structurally incapable of addressing this crisis, let alone resolving it. As a result, reform initiatives such as Student Loan Justice and Forgive Student Debt (to Stimulate the Economy) that have been aimed at petitioning lawmakers have very little to show for all their hard effort. The recent federal modifications in payment schedules are micro-cosmetic compared to the sea-change that is required to free debtors of their intolerable burdens and rescue higher education from its increasing use as a profit engine for financiers, asset speculators, and real estate developers. The pathway to this outcome does not lie in futile pleas for economic reform, but through a political movement, driven by self-empowerment and direct action on the part of debtors.

The Occupy Student Debt Campaign was launched at Zuccotti Park in November 2011 with the goal of building a student debt abolition movement. Our campaign is based on principles for which we believe there is widespread support:

1) Free public education, through federal coverage of tuition fees.

2) Zero-interest student loans, so that no one can profit from them.

3) Fiscal transparency at all universities, public as well as private.

4) The elimination of current student debt, through a single act of relief.

These are interlocking principles, and should not stand on their own. Imagine a world in which lawmakers were to respond positively to the current calls for debt “forgiveness” (an unfortunate term that implies the debtor has sinned). Such a measure would offer much-needed relief, but it would still disadvantage future debtors if it were not complemented by remedies that brought to an end the practice of compelling students to privately fund higher education by going into debt bondage. So, too, a singular focus on reducing interest rates (even to zero) is more likely to encourage colleges to increase their fees than to open up equitable access to education.

Continue reading »