Politics

Presidential Candidates Lean on Well-Funded Outside Groups

Published

9 years ago

June 18, 2015

In this June 15, 2015 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton shakes hands after speaking inside a barn as it rained in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole, File)

JULIE BYKOWICZ, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton are asking donors to write the checks to get their campaigns started. Yet these “new” candidates have been fueling their presidential ambitions for months — years, in Clinton’s case — thanks to outside groups that will continue serving as big-money bank accounts throughout the race.

In the 2016 presidential field, creative financing abounds.

While donors can give a maximum $2,700 apiece per election to their favorite candidatdte’s campaign, the presidential contenders offer generous supporters plenty of other options. Outside groups that can accept checks of unlimited size include personalized super PACs that, while barred from directly coordinating with candidates, are often filled with their trusted friends. There are also “dark money” nonprofit policy groups that keep contributors’ names secret.

Super PACs working exclusively to help individual presidential candidates appeared on the scene in the last race, with Restore Our Future supporting Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Priorities USA boosting President Barack Obama. One 2012 super PAC, funded almost entirely by Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, kept Newt Gingrich afloat in the Republican nomination contest by spending millions of dollars on television ads promoting him and attacking other candidates.

This time, the influence of those kinds of groups will increase “by a huge factor,” said Spencer Zwick, the chief fundraiser for Romney.

“Super PACs in 2012 were still not talked about by the campaign apparatus,” he said. Not so in 2016. “You literally have the same leadership group that’s running a super PAC that will then run the campaign, or vice versa.”

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ann Ravel called it a Wild West atmosphere, fostered by the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case that empowered outside groups to take in and spend unlimited sums. She argues this system is insufficiently policed by her politically deadlocked agency.

The campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21 has filed complaints against many of the candidates working with super PACs. Its president, Fred Wertheimer, sees “all sorts of edgy, and I would say illegal, coordination going on.”

Others see no cause for alarm. “What could be more American?” asked David Keating, director of the Center for Competitive Politics, which advocates for an end to campaign contribution limits. “More money means more speech. It ensures a robust debate about the future of our country and keeps people interested and involved.”

The cash flood has already resulted in more than $1 million in negative ads, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, in an election still more than 500 days away. This presidential race, with the most aggressive use yet of outside groups, is on track to cost more than the $2.6 billion tab for the 2012 presidential contest.

Bush’s kickoff this week has come with pleas to help fill his empty campaign coffers. But the Republican former Florida governor has already spent six months raising money for Right to Rise, a super PAC that will help him compete by spending tens of millions of dollars on television ads.

Until he became a declared presidential candidate, Bush was free to fundraise for Right to Rise, and he did so with vigor. He told the group’s top donors in April that they had helped raise more money in the previous 100 days than any Republican operation in modern times. Bush will now distance himself from the super PAC, leaving it in the hands of his longtime consultant Mike Murphy. “I’m going to miss him,” Bush recently said about Murphy. “But from here on out, I’m not going to be talking to him.”

Supporters can also contribute to Bush’s separate nonprofit group called Right to Rise Policy Solutions. Such “dark-money” groups — so called because they don’t reveal donors — are limited in how much election work they can do. GOP presidential candidates Rick Perry and Rick Santorum and possible candidates Bobby Jindal and John Kasich are each linked to a nonprofit.

Clinton, who became a candidate in April and is dominating the small Democratic field, is also benefiting from outside helpers. Fundraising emails last week encouraged supporters to become “launch donors” before the Saturday speech in New York City that was the first big rally of her campaign.

There are already 135,000 donors — some dating back two years — who might consider themselves her founding backers. They gave to a super PAC called Ready for Hillary, which was formed by aides in January 2013 to encourage the former first lady and secretary of state to run for president.

Clinton’s campaign recently obtained the super PAC’s donor list, and information on almost 4 million people who signed up with it, by swapping the information with other groups backing her.

One of those, Correct the Record, is blazing an entirely new trail — and one that some election watchdogs say is questionable — by planning to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. The group says it can avoid pushback from the election commission by not spending any money on paid advertisements and instead just posting its content for free on social media and websites.

Republican rival Ben Carson, a political newcomer, has gone about all this in reverse.

He started with a campaign announcement May 4, then dispatched top strategists to a still-unnamed super PAC. This approach comes with a drawback: Legally, the former campaign aides must wait 120 days before starting work at the super PAC.

“I put the campaign together, and now I’m going to put the super PAC together because I have the big-money contacts,” said Terry Giles, who served as Carson’s top strategist and will run the super PAC once he can legally do so in September. “I hired all of the campaign people, and I know exactly what their strategy is, so I can very effectively lead the super PAC. It’s unorthodox from a political standpoint, but it is not at all unorthodox from a business standpoint.”

Associated Press writer Thomas Beaumont in Tallin, Estonia, contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

The Legal Loophole That Allowed Dylann Roof to Get a Gun

Don't Miss

60 Million People Fleeing Chaotic Lands, U.N. Says

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 8 – 14, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May May 8 – 14, 2024

Published

4 days ago

May 10, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

S.F. Black Leaders Rally to Protest, Discuss ‘Epidemic’ of Racial Slurs Against Black Students in SF Public School System

Parents at the meeting spoke of their children as no longer feeling safe in school because of bullying and discrimination. Parents also said that reported incidents such as racial slurs and intimidation are not dealt with to their satisfaction and feel ignored.

Published

1 week ago

May 4, 2024

Oakland Post

Rev. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP and pastor of Third Baptist Church. Photo courtesy Third Baptist Church.

By Carla Thomas

San Francisco’s Third Baptist Church hosted a rally and meeting Sunday to discuss hatred toward African American students of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).

Rev. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP and pastor of Third Baptist Church, along with leadership from local civil rights groups, the city’s faith-based community and Black community leadership convened at the church.

“There has been an epidemic of racial slurs and mistreatment of Black children in our public schools in the city,” said Brown. “This will not be tolerated.”

According to civil rights advocate Mattie Scott, students from elementary to high school have reported an extraordinary amount of racial slurs directed at them.

“There is a surge of overt racism in the schools, and our children should not be subjected to this,” said Scott. “Students are in school to learn, develop, and grow, not be hated on,” said Scott. “The parents of the children feel they have not received the support necessary to protect their children.”

Attendees were briefed last Friday in a meeting with SFUSD Superintendent Dr. Matt Wayne.

SFUSD states that their policies protect children and they are not at liberty to publicly discuss the issues to protect the children’s privacy.

Some parents said they have removed their students from school while other parents and community leaders called on the removal of the SFUSD superintendent, the firing of certain school principals and the need for more supportive school board members.

Community advocates discussed boycotting the schools and creating Freedom Schools led by Black leaders and educators, reassuring parents that their child’s wellbeing and education are the highest priority and youth are not to be disrupted by racism or policies that don’t support them.

Virginia Marshall, chair of the San Francisco NAACP’s education committee, offered encouragement to the parents and students in attendance while also announcing an upcoming May 14 school board meeting to demand accountability over their mistreatment.

“I’m urging anyone that cares about our students to pack the May 14 school board meeting,” said Marshall.

This resource was supported in whole or in part by funding provided by the State of California, administered by the California State Library via California Black Media as part of the Stop the Hate Program. The program is supported by partnership with California Department of Social Services and the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs as part of the Stop the Hate program. To report a hate incident or hate crime and get support, go to CA vs Hate.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Board of Supervisors Accepts Certification of Signatures, Will Schedule Recall Election May 14

The Alameda Board of Supervisors unanimously accepted the certification of the results of the valid signatures submitted for the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price on Tuesday evening. The Board will set the election date at a special meeting on May 14. Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Published

2 weeks ago

May 4, 2024

Oakland Post

District Attorney Pamela Price ‘Protect the Win’ supporters held signs outside of the County Administration Office to ask the Board of Supervisors to not schedule a special recall election. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

By Magaly Muñoz

Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Price, who up until this point has made little public comment about the recall, held her press conference in Jack London to announce that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into the finances of the Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE) recall campaign.

The political action committee (PAC), Reviving the Bay Area, has been the largest contributor to the SAFE organization and has allegedly donated over half a million dollars to the recall efforts.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, [Revive the Bay Area] donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” Price said.

Price accused the recall campaigns of using irregular signature-gathering processes, such as paying gatherers per signature, and using misleading information to get people to sign their petitions.

SAFE held their own press conference outside of the Alameda County Administration Building at 1221 Oak St. in Oakland, once again calling for the Board to certify their signatures and set a date for the recall election.

Their press conference turned contentious quickly as Price’s “Protect the Win” supporters attempted to yell over the SAFE staff and volunteers. “Stop scapegoating Price” and “Recall Price” chants went on for several moments at a time during this event.

Families of victims urged the Board to think of their loved ones whose lives are worth much more than the millions of dollars that many opponents of the recall say is too much to spend on a special election.

The Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates the special election could cost anywhere from $15 to $20 million, an amount that is not in their budget.

The Board was presented with several options on when and how to conduct the recall election. They have to set a date no less than 88 days or more than 125 days after May 14, meaning the date could fall anywhere from late July to September.

But the County charter also states that if a general election takes place within 180 days of their scheduling deadline, the Board could choose to use the November ballot as a way to consolidate the two events.

In the event that Price is recalled, the Supervisors would appoint someone to fill the vacancy, though neither the County nor the California charter specifies how long they would have to pick a replacement.

The appointee would serve as district attorney spot until the next election in 2026. Afterwards, either they, if they run and win, or a newly elected candidate would serve the rest of Price’s six-year term until 2029. Price is unique as the only district attorney wo serves a term of six years.

The Board acknowledged that they knew last fall that this recall would come with its own set of complications when Measure B, which changed the local recall charter to match California’s, was first brought to their consideration.

Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert opposed discussing the measure, stating that the public would think that the Board was attempting to influence the recall campaign that had already taken off months prior.

“I think ultimately this feels like it’s going to end up in court, one way or the other, depending on who files what,” Haubert said.

Price’s legal team told the Post that the district attorney intended to consider all legal options should the recall election take place.

Miley stated that while he was in support of the amendment to the charter, he did not think it was right to schedule it for the March ballot as it would ultimately cause confusion for everyone involved.

“It has produced some legal entanglements that I think, potentially, could’ve been avoided,” Miley said.