Go Home

campaign finance

3 documents found in 0 seconds.

How Much Did Sheldon Adelson Really Spend on Campaign 2012?

Sheldon Adelson - Caricature

By Theodoric Meyer, ProPublica, Dec. 20, 2012, 11:48 a.m.

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate and emblem of the Citizens United-era of campaign finance, spent gobs of money on the 2012 elections — more money than anyone else in American history.

Exactly how much, you ask?

We don't really know, and it's likely we never will. Many of the groups that spent the most on the election aren't required to report their donors. But thanks to recent campaign finance filings, we can get a better idea.

We dug through Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service records and found that Adelson and his wife, Miriam, spent at least $101 million this election cycle. The money went to at least 30 different candidates and groups, with contributions ranging from $2,000 for a Florida congressional candidate to $30 million for Restore Our Future, the super PAC that supported Mitt Romney.

Adelson also gave $25 million to Winning Our Future, a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich; $23 million to American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC; and $5 million each to the Congressional Leadership Fund and the YG Action Fund, both of which supported Republican candidates for Congress.

One of the more puzzling contributions was a $1 million check Adelson wrote in October. The money went to Hardworking Americans, a super PAC that attacked Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who had a big lead in the polls and was re-elected three weeks later by a 21-point margin.

A spokesman for Adelson's company, Las Vegas Sands, did not respond to a request for comment.

The $101 million figure matches up with the $100 million that Adelson, who is worth a reported $21 billion, had vowed to spend to defeat President Obama. But it doesn't include the checks he wrote to "dark-money" groups — organizations that don't have to disclose their donors, making their spending harder to track. These groups have proliferated since the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited corporate and union giving.

The Huffington Post recently reported that Adelson's total spending may have approached $150 million.

Two anonymous Republican fundraisers told the Huffington Post that Adelson had given between $30 and $40 million to Crossroads GPS, the dark-money group founded by Karl Rove, and at least $15 million to groups affiliated with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialist brothers. Adelson also gave millions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Jewish Coalition, the fundraisers said.

If accurate, those numbers would place Adelson's total spending on the election at around $155 million.



Untitled

By Kim Barker, ProPublica

In a confidential 2010 filing, Crossroads GPS — the dark money group that spent more than $70 million from anonymous donors on the 2012 election — told the Internal Revenue Service that its efforts would focus on public education, research and shaping legislation and policy.

The group's application for recognition as a social welfare nonprofit acknowledged that it would spend money to influence elections, but said "any such activity will be limited in amount, and will not constitute the organization's primary purpose."

Political insiders and campaign-finance watchdogs have long questioned how Crossroads, the brainchild of GOP strategist Karl Rove, had characterized its intentions to the IRS.

Now, for the first time, ProPublica has obtained the group's application for recognition of tax-exempt status, filed in September 2010. The IRS has not yet recognized Crossroads GPS as exempt, causing some tax experts to speculate that the agency is giving the application extra scrutiny. If Crossroads GPS is ultimately not recognized, it could be forced to reveal the identities of its donors.

The tax code allows groups like Crossroads to spend money on political campaigns — and to keep their donors private — as long as their primary purpose is enhancing social welfare.

Crossroads' breakdown of planned activities said it would focus half its efforts on "public education," 30 percent on "activity to influence legislation and policymaking" and 20 percent on "research," including sponsoring "in-depth policy research on significant issues."

This seems at odds with much of what the group has done since filing the application, experts said. Within two months of filing its application, Crossroads spent about $15.5 million on ads telling people to vote against Democrats or for Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections.

"That statement of proposed activities does not seem to align with what they actually did, which was to raise and spend hundreds of millions to influence candidate elections," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, who reviewed the group's application at ProPublica's request.

Officials with Crossroads GPS would not answer specific questions about the material in the application or whether the IRS had sent a response to it.

"As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved," Jonathan Collegio, the group's spokesman, said in an email.

The IRS sent Crossroads' application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn't include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.

In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group's application was still in limbo.

"It has come to our attention that you are in receipt of application materials of organizations that have not been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt," wrote the spokeswoman, Michelle Eldridge. She cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both. The IRS would not comment further on the Crossroads application.

"ProPublica believes that the information we are publishing is not barred by the statute cited by the IRS, and it is clear to us that there is a strong First Amendment interest in its publication," said Richard Tofel, ProPublica's general manager.

ProPublica has redacted parts of the application to omit Crossroads' financial information.

With its sister group, the super PAC American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS has helped remake how modern political campaigns are financed.

American Crossroads, which does identify its donors, spent almost $105 million on election ads in the 2012 cycle. For its part, Crossroads GPS poured more than $70 million into ads and phone calls urging voters to pick Republicans — outlays that were reported to the Federal Election Commission. It also announced spending an additional $50 million on ads critical of President Barack Obama that ran outside the FEC's reporting window.

Based on the extent of Crossroads GPS' campaign activities, Obama's re-election campaign asked the FEC in June to force it to register as a political action committee and disclose its donors. The FEC has yet to rule on the request.

Politically active social welfare nonprofits like Crossroads have proliferated since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January 2010 opened the door to unlimited political spending by corporations and unions.

Earlier this year, a ProPublica report showed that many of these groups exploit gaps in regulation between the IRS and the FEC, using their social welfare status as a way to shield donors' identities while spending millions on political campaigns. The IRS' definition of political activity is broader than the FEC's, yet our investigation showed many social welfare groups underreported political spending on their tax returns.

It's impossible to know precisely how Crossroads has directed its efforts, but the breakdown of expenses on its tax returns from June 2010 to December 2011 gives some indications.

During those 19 months, Crossroads spent a total of $64.7 million, of which $1.4 million — or just 2 percent — was identified as being spent on research. That compares with the 20 percent of effort Crossroads said it would devote to research in its application.

A tax return covering this year isn't due until November 2013.

The IRS rarely pursues criminal charges against nonprofits based on statements in their applications. It's more common for the agency to deny recognition or revoke a group's tax-exempt status.

In a letter to Congress in September, the IRS said it was engaged in "more than 70 ongoing examinations" of social welfare nonprofits. Earlier, in its work plan for the 2012 fiscal year, the agency said it was taking a hard look at social welfare nonprofits with "serious allegations of impermissible political intervention."

Campaign finance watchdog Fred Wertheimer, who runs Democracy 21 and has filed several complaints to the IRS about Crossroads, said the group's application for recognition showed why more aggressive enforcement is needed.

"When you read what they say on their application, there are a lot of words there. But I find them to be disingenuous and to have little to do with why Karl Rove founded this organization," Wertheimer said. "If you believe this is a social welfare organization, I have a rocket that can get you to the moon very quickly and at very little cost."



Money is Speech: A Musical History of Campaign Finance

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