January 31, 2012 5:49 PM

Liberal super PACs exploit loophole to keep donors unknown

By
Laura Strickler, Alexandra Hootnick
Topics
Campaign 2012

As super PAC filings pour into the Federal Election Committee (FEC) on Tuesday, it's clear that the people filing them are savvy about getting around disclosure requirements. Several left-leaning super PACs have raised a significant amount of money without listing the individual names of any of their donors.

This is the new norm, now that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision allows unlimited contributions from unions and corporations, as well as individuals, as long as they do not coordinate with the candidate they support. They have collectively spent more than $44 million during Campaign 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

For example, the AFL-CIO super PAC received $2.2 million from...  the AFL-CIO; the super PAC provided no breakdown of who gave the original money to the union. The union's super PAC also got $500,000 from each of the following unions: American Federation of Teachers, Unite Here Tip State and Local Fund, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The America Votes Action Fund, a liberal D.C.-based organization, contributed more than $500,000 to the effort to recall two conservative Wisconsin senators who voted alongside Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's controversial union-busting and budget-cutting measures. Of the fund's 21 contributors, the Teamsters' political action committee, DRIVE, donated $400,000.

The Citizens for Strength and Security super PAC, founded by a former aide to former presidential candidate John Edwards, collected its $71,945 in donations almost entirely from its own nonprofit, called Citizens for Strength and Security. The super PAC did not return calls about the names of individuals who contributed to the nonprofit.

Super PACs exposed: Groups report fundraising and spending

Mostyn Law Firm, a Texas-based firm specializing in insurance litigation, exclusively donated $125,000 to Texans for America's Future, an anti-Rick Perry super PAC, listing just the name of the law firm.

Political scholar Norm Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute told CBS News that he thinks disclosure of donations should be mandatory and he expressed frustration with the Supreme Court for handing down the Citizens United decision.

"The thing that needs to change the most is the Supreme Court," Ornstein said. "If I could do one thing, it would be to raise a generous retirement package for Justice Kennedy, but if we can't change the Supreme Court , we need at the minimum a truly robust regime of disclosure."


Add a Comment See all 24 Comments
by sandiegopete January 31, 2012 11:20 PM EST
Today's hyperbole award goes to enzas_bs who commented that the taxes U.S. citizens pay is tyrannical and oppressive. Riiight enzas.

I have a dream. I dream that people like enzas would have the opportunity to live in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Haiti, countries without tyrannical or oppressive taxes. It never ceases to amaze me how many so called conservatives believe freedom should be free.
Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 January 31, 2012 10:36 PM EST
I am socially liberal (well, duh), and I openly disagree with:

(a) keeping donors unknown
(b) loopholes to allow an overt set of rules for us to be given an end-run by those who may not be working for Americans' interest
(c) anyone allowing donors to corrupt the system in the first place

Even if it's entities who claim to be out for the American worker, we all know there's some corruption and greed afoot as well. When workers pay solid double-digit figures every month, just so certain "delegates" can party in some annual "convention" in Nevada... something smells.
Reply to this comment
by ProgressNow January 31, 2012 8:47 PM EST
Super PACs are people my friends...people like you and me. :$)
Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 January 31, 2012 10:37 PM EST
Best. Mustache. Ever. :$)
by buckeroo5 January 31, 2012 7:42 PM EST
The President,as leader of his party, once again expressed that every American should pay his fair share in taxes. One sizable loophole in the Federal Tax Code is TAX EXCLUSION INCOME. It is time to do something about this unfair tax revenue placed disproportionally on small business & especially the self-reliant. The President is correct we are all in this mess together. It is time to correct the inequity of Tax Exclusion income for some rather than for all workers earning income & paying taxes on all received income. There is no reason for this inequity especially after the President many request for equity.
Reply to this comment
by enzas_Bs January 31, 2012 8:21 PM EST
What are you talking about. Everyone including the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes.
What all Americans are paying is tyrannical and oppressive.
Just worry about your own money and taxes and pay more if you feel that way.
Why is others money always an issue with the left?
by ProgressNow January 31, 2012 9:35 PM EST
"Everyone including the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes."
----
Not proportionally they don't...why do find it necessary to defend greed and irresponsibility???
by captihook January 31, 2012 7:23 PM EST
Congress should act to require disclosure of who contributes how much money to a Super Pac, or to an organization that contributes to a Super Pac. No-one should be in the position of buying an election, whether a Super-Pac purports to be liberal or conservative. This should be simpler to do than passing a constitutional amendment banning contributions altogether.
Reply to this comment
by toouncommon January 31, 2012 7:20 PM EST
The article contradicts itself. It implies that the union's donations are not legal or are skirting some issue.

When the Big Oil, Coal, Banking and Brokerage corporations give a big donation, the names of the actual donors are never listed, so why should Unions do any different?

Are the Koch brothers' SuperPAC any different?

Let's measure everybody with the same yardstick. I doubt that foreigners are funneling money into the unions in the first place, but last time I checked Rupert Murdoch was not an American citizen, how much has his corporate pawns donated to the right-wing SuperPAC's???
Reply to this comment
by buckeroo5 January 31, 2012 7:50 PM EST
If the politician would make everyone pay his fair share on income like most of us have to do, it would not matter.
by McDuderson January 31, 2012 7:09 PM EST
Funny, as Conservatives were the main proponents of the Citizens United decision. The moment Liberals do what Conservatives wanted to, there's an uproar!
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday4BO2012 January 31, 2012 7:18 PM EST
Trying to justify the left's corrupt secretive ways are you and throw a spin on it as well?
How pitifull.
by Swiftrights January 31, 2012 7:05 PM EST
"Liberal super PACs exploit loophole to keep donors unknown"

by loophole you mean citizen united in its entirety???
We don't need to close "loopholes" we need to shut that monstrosity DOWN. And furthermore while some one is writing up a retirement package for Kennedy we need some prosecutors to write up some charges against Thomas for taking money and services from parties with a case on the docket and lying about his income.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday4BO2012 January 31, 2012 7:20 PM EST
Didn't you understand the story?
Read it again and maybe it will read what you want it to and not what it meant.
by buckeroo5 January 31, 2012 7:54 PM EST
I take it you are referring to Justice Thomas wife ? Or are you referring to the influences in your own home ?
by Scout888 January 31, 2012 7:04 PM EST
When I saw the link to this article on Google News, right next to it was a link to "GOP Super PAC Raises $51 million in 2011." The super PAC is Karl Rove's American Crossroads, which also doesn't have to disclose its donors. So for CBS News and the righties commenting on this article, the conservative Supreme Court is achieving exactly what it aimed to do -- make it easier for the GOP to receive massive donations from the corporations it protects from regulations and oversight. But apparently CBS only cares to criticize the liberals. So much for liberal bias in the media.
Reply to this comment
by AmericanLady100 January 31, 2012 7:00 PM EST
Both left-leaning and right-leaning PACs will be hiding who's behind all the money. As the article points out, you can thank our Supreme Court for it.
Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 January 31, 2012 10:36 PM EST
Agreed
See all 24 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...