Democratic Super PAC Gifts Rise

Priorities USA Action, which is run by two former White House aides, reported raising $4 million in May, more than a twofold increase over its collections a month earlier. Officials at the group said fund-raising in June had already exceeded May’s haul.

The seven-figure contributions came from Barbara Stiefel, a longtime Democratic fund-raiser from Florida; Franklin L. Haney, a real estate developer from Tennessee, and Steve Mostyn, a trial lawyer in Texas.

The three helped Priorities draw almost even — at least for the month — with Restore Our Future, the primary super PAC backing Mitt Romney, which reported raising about $5 million in May.

The spike in donations comes as top campaign officials for Mr. Obama traveled to Washington to give reporters an update on the race. The advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity so that they could frankly discuss their strategy, predicted that Mr. Romney and groups backing him would spend $1.25 billion on television advertising.

“Republicans are betting they can win this thing on the air,” one senior adviser said. “Make no mistake, we will be outspent.”

That worry was underscored by the groups backing Mr. Romney’s presidential bid, who on Wednesday reported large hauls in May. Restore Our Future reportedly received a $10 million pledge in June from Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who donated millions to Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid during the primaries.

Mr. Obama also is facing millions of dollars in advertisements against him from American Crossroads, a super PAC, and its sister organization, Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group that does not disclose its donors.

Mr. Obama’s campaign filed a complaint on Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission demanding that Crossroads GPS disclose its donors, citing a recent court case. In response, a spokesman for Crossroads noted that Priorities USA also has a sister organization that does not disclose its donors.

The issue of disclosure has hampered fund-raising on the Democratic side in the past. For much of 2011, Priorities USA Action operated without the blessing of Mr. Obama, who had repeatedly lambasted the flow of undisclosed money into campaigns after the Citizens United Supreme Court Case in 2010.

The campaign altered course in February, embracing the Democratic super PAC and sending some of its top advisers to help with fund-raising. Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr. Obama’s campaign, said Wednesday that the campaign helps raise money only for Priorities USA Action, the part of the group that discloses its donors, though he acknowledged that the group has a sister organization that does not.

“We were 100 percent clear that we weren’t supporting any” group that does not disclose, Mr. LaBolt said.

The two campaigns revealed their May fund-raising totals this month. Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee raised about $78 million in contrast to $60 million from Mr. Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

On Wednesday, the campaigns provided details about their fund-raising in filings with the Federal Election Commission. The D.N.C. totals included a virtual who’s who from Hollywood, including: Kirk Douglas, Billy Crystal, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Salma Hayek and Burt Bacharach.

The Obama campaign increased spending, particularly in advertising but also in polling and focus groups. Mr. Obama’s campaign detailed its spending on television commercials, including a $25 million ad campaign it had announced earlier. The reports show Mr. Obama spent $28.9 million on television ads in May and an additional $5.4 million on online ads.

Mr. Romney more than doubled his fund-raising total from April by collecting $23.4 million in May, and he ended the month with $17 million in cash on hand. A joint committee with the Republican National Committee brought in $7.1 million of Romney’s total.

View the original article here

‘Super PAC’ Backs Adriano Espaillat in House Race Against Charles Rangel

The group, called the Campaign for Primary Accountability, has received most of its financing from a few businessmen with histories of donating to Republican causes, but it describes itself as nonpartisan and says its mission is to defeat longtime Congressional incumbents on the right and the left.

The group’s spokesman, Curtis Ellis, said its aim was to counterbalance the advantages enjoyed by incumbents, which, he said, made them less answerable to their constituents.

“We call ourselves ‘the equalizer,’ ” Mr. Ellis said.

The group got involved in Mr. Rangel’s race because it believed that he was vulnerable and that Mr. Espaillat was “a real challenger,” Mr. Ellis said.

“If you look at the support that Mr. Espaillat has been able to attract — that, combined with our own survey research — is what tells us that there is an opening here,” he said.

Mr. Ellis did not specify how much the group planned to spend in the race, but he said it generally spent “in the six-figure range” in House races. He said the money would most likely be spent on direct mail, online advertising, voter outreach and targeted ethnic media buys.

“Congressman Rangel, for all he has done, has become the model of what happens when incumbents get too comfortable with the special interests that operate in Washington,” Mr. Ellis said.

The PAC’s decision to assist Mr. Espaillat was first reported by the State of Politics blog.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Rangel’s campaign, Ronnie Sykes, said in a statement: “You can learn a lot about an elected official by who their enemies are. These conservatives know that the congressman is one of the most effective legislators in Congress and is a progressive champion.”

Mr. Espaillat is the most prominent of several Democratic candidates hoping to defeat Mr. Rangel in a primary on June 26. Mr. Rangel, 81, has long been one of the most powerful black politicians in the country, but several factors — including an ethics scandal, a redrawn district that is now majority Latino and back problems that hospitalized him this year — have made the race appear competitive.

Mr. Rangel returned to Washington on Monday for the first time in several months. He sat in the front row of the House as fellow Democrats greeted him with hugs and handshakes, and colleagues held a reception in his honor on Monday evening.

Earlier in the day, President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, appeared to hesitate when asked if the president was going to support Mr. Rangel’s re-election.

“I’ll have to get back to you on that,” Mr. Carney said.

In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mr. Espaillat was asked by Fredric U. Dicker, the state editor of The New York Post, about the changing demographics in the district and whether his campaign would emphasize ethnic themes.

“It’s really a response to the needs of the constituents across the district — not just the Latinos, but, you know, African-Americans, you know, Asians, whites,” Mr. Espaillat responded, adding that everyone “really wants a change.”

“When Charlie Rangel got elected back in 1970, the year before, man walked on the moon,” Mr. Espaillat, 57, said. “The Mets won a championship, the first championship; Joe Namath was throwing touchdown passes for the Jets; and Nixon was president. So that was a long time ago, and that district has really evolved into a new district, a very diverse district.”

View the original article here

Spending by super PACs in Colorado is the dominion of Democrats - Denver Post

Joan Fitz- Gerald speaks during a candidates forum in 2008. (Daily Camera file | Paul Aiken)

Colorado's version of liberal super PACs spent nearly 150 times more money than their Republican counterparts in the last election cycle, with most of the money coming from a small circle of unions, wealthy individuals and advocacy organizations, a Denver Post analysis found.

Collaborative and well-coordinated, the groups not only funded television and radio ads, but put large amounts of money — almost $600,000 for one state Senate race — into canvassing neighborhoods, phone calls and direct mailings that often contained withering attacks on GOP opponents.

The results: In a political climate favoring Republicans, Democrats retained control of the state Senate and lost the House by only one seat. They also won the governor's mansion three months after unleashing a half-million dollars in ads targeting Scott McInnis, the stronger candidate in the GOP primary, who was pushed out of the race.

"We do what it takes to win day in and day out," said Joan Fitz-Gerald, former Colorado Senate president and current head of America Votes, a Washington D.C.-based liberal organization that coordinates election campaigns with 37 Colorado groups.

A 2010 state law required so-called super PACs — independent expenditure committees that directly advocate for or against a candidate — to disclose not only their donors, but their disbursements. The Post analyzed that data to calculate for the first time the vast disparity between Democratic and Republican independent expenditure committee spending — about $4.24 million to $28,644. Interviews with those familiar with the Democrats' operations also gave The Post a glimpse into their long-term strategy to dominate state politics.

Unless there is a drastic change over the next eight months, Republicans say they have a tough road ahead.

The party, which continues to splinter among different interest groups, also struggles to attract big donors and faces a Democratic-drawn redistricting map. And while the GOP has started to construct a political infrastructure and tapped nonprofit advocacy groups for message delivery, they remain years behind the Democrats whose vast philanthropic, political and wealthy donor network shares everything from voter files to strategy.

"We've had a lot of chiefs trying to solve a lot of problems, but they aren't well-coordinated," said Colorado GOP consultant Katy Atkinson. "We need to get fed up with losing like the Democrats did. But I don't know if Republicans have hit bottom yet."

State politics transformed

It has been eight years since four rich liberals — Pat Stryker, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Rutt Bridges — were brought together by Al Yates, a former Colorado State University president. The group transformed state politics by funding independent political committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they don't specifically advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or coordinate with a candidate.

The committees — called 527s, after the section of the tax code that governs them — launched surprise attacks on a handful of vulnerable Republican legislators. When the smoke cleared, the Democrats controlled the state Senate and House for the first time in 44 years. Two years later, similar groups helped Democrat Bill Ritter get elected governor.

The 2004 strategy sessions of the so-called Gang of Four evolved into the Colorado Democracy Alliance, or CoDA, a corporation that focuses on supporting candidates, as well as coordinating and funding a network of independent groups with similar agendas. And that model was exported to other states.

"We don't stand alone in silos. We meet on a consistent basis.We understand each other's issues and how to thread them together," said Fitz-Gerald, who became the state's first female Senate president after the 2004 election.

Democrats involved with the network are unwilling to publicly share details of their strategy. Part of the strategy is not talking about it, one said. But interviews with Democrats who asked not to be identified reveal a few simple principles.

Winning is everything

To start, state races have specific plans and funding sources. That way no one relies on money trickling down from the top of the ticket. Consistent interaction and a strong political infrastructure build trust and collaboration. Losing is inevitable, so the key is to never let the pendulum swing so far that those losses can't be recouped in a better climate. And most importantly, winning is everything. Policy and ideology can never get in the way of putting a Democrat in office.

Using this framework, Colorado Democrats have been able to recruit and organize wealthy donors, as well as bridge gaps in the party, even uniting unions with what one consultant calls the "Chablis and brie crowd."

Republicans have been trying to catch up for years, said conservative Jon Caldara, but their political and financial strategy remains out-of-date.

"Republicans still have 12:00 blinking on their VCR, while Democrats are asking, 'What's a VCR?' " said Caldara, head of The Independence Institute.

Colorado Democrats leaped ahead of the GOP again in 2010 after two federal court rulings gave corporations, unions and other independent groups the right to directly influence elections. Democrats quickly set up independent expenditure groups, which can lay out unlimited amounts of money and expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate as long as they do not coordinate with the office-seeker. Then they transferred money from the 527s, as well as infused fresh money, into the newly created groups, The Post found by examining financial records from the two types of organizations .

Both 527s and independent expenditure groups can roll out negative ads. But a 527 is limited to stating "call your legislator and tell her to vote no" on a certain issue, while an independent expenditure group can go a step further, using what has become known as the "magic words": "vote for," "reject," "defeat" or "elect" a specific candidate.

"Those words make a difference at the point of sale. When it's the second week of October and voting starts, you want to make the most direct statement. You want to tell them exactly what to do," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli.

So while the GOP stuck to a beat-around-the-bush strategy, Democrats hit Republicans head on with targeted and coordinated messages.

In the end, liberal groups won 17 of the 24 legislative races they put direct advocacy money into, The Post found. Senate Majority Leader John Morse of Colorado Springs raised $163,769 for his re-election campaign. Outside groups, however, put in nearly $600,000 on his behalf. Morse won by about 340 votes.

Two other victorious Democratic Senate candidates — Jeanne Nicholson of Black Hawk and Gail Schwartz of Snowmass Village — saw independent groups put in more than $300,000 for each race. And one group, Environment Colorado, spent $200,000 for neighborhood canvassing on behalf of the Democratic candidates for governor, attorney general, state Senate and state House.

"Even when the political environment is rotten to them, (the Democrats) have the capacity to turn the tide by targeting money at the very top and at the bottom of the ticket," said Republican Josh Penry, former minority leader in the state Senate. "It should be a call to arms for conservatives who have resources and can match the effort."

In the Colorado governor's race , a liberal group called The Freedom Fund spent $500,000 in the 10 days leading up to the GOP primary for attack ads against McInnis, who was caught up in a plagiarism scandal. Even though a Post poll six weeks earlier showed McInnis ahead of his GOP opponent by 28 percentage points, he lost.

"It seemed that we were actually starting to recover a little. And then, bam! They dropped the piano on our head," said Sean Duffy, former communications director for McInnis.

The Democrat, now-Gov. John Hickenlooper, easily won the general election.

During the 2008 and 2010 elections, Democrats spent roughly 70 percent of the $23 million shelled out by all 527s. The top contributors included a handful of unions, Gill and Stryker, and, especially in 2010, a few "social welfare" organizations, known as a 501(c)4s under the tax code. They included America Votes, which gave $464,250 and Progressive Future ($425,000).

These groups are legally allowed to engage in political activities as long as it it's not their primary purpose. But they are not required to disclose their donors.

Contributors who want to shield their identities often funnel money through 501(c)4s. Nationally, these groups have been effectively utilized by the GOP, most prominently by George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove. Colorado Republicans also used these groups to put out fliers and ads in 2010 races.

""We haven't gotten big money out of politics. We've just driven it into the shadows," said Rob Witwer, former GOP state representative and co-author of "The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)."

In a state where current voter registration is 37 percent Republican, 32 percent Democrat and 30 percent unaffiliated, Democrats have also found other ways to use their money in a way hidden from public view. Philanthropic organizations are often responsible for voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Legally, the charities are prohibited from partisan activities. But their members can go to neighborhoods or cities, like Denver or Pueblo, that heavily lean Democratic and register voters there, Democratic sources said.

Additionally, Democrats have Catalist, a for-profit company that has an uber-voter file: demographic, political and commercial/marketing information for 280 million Americans.

President Barack Obama tapped into Catalist for his 2008 presidential race, according to The Atlantic, and Colorado Democrats say it was used for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet's race. In the final two weeks, Democrats said, they targeted voters household by household, helping Bennet win by a narrow margin.

Also fully funded are layers of Democratic political infrastructure. Various Colorado and local chapters of national groups handle policy, opposition research, candidate recruitment, leadership and training, and media.

A news outlet does a story

A typical, hypothetical scenario might look like this: A liberal group with a nonpartisan name like Colorado First puts out a list of polluters and demands official action. A Republican running for Colorado office is on the list. Paid liberal bloggers chatter. An online liberal publication with a newspaper-like name writes an article about the candidate and his company polluting Colorado's streams. A liberal advocacy group puts out a news release, citing the group and the publication, which sound reputable to an ordinary voter. They mass e-mail the release and attach a catchy phrase to it like "Dirty Doug." At some point, the mainstream media checks out the allegations. Depending on the facts, a news outlet does a story.

Another group, or even the opponent of "Dirty Doug," uses the media story in a mail piece. And another group runs a TV or radio ad.

These types of integrated offenses were used against McInnis; Republican Bob Beauprez, a candidate for governor in 2006; then-Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in 2008; and countless legislative candidates.

Republicans do have their own versions of some of these groups, but they still lack disciplined coordination. Some told The Post that the "it-takes-a-village" approach adopted by Democrats just isn't in the DNA of big-money Republicans. Many come from the business community, where they have a lot of control and don't like to delegate it. Others are focused on individualism, not the collective whole, and still others only want to back groups with certain social agendas. Additionally, it's hard to get donors excited when their team is losing and struggling to recruit fresh candidates, said Republican consultant Sean Tonner.

"Big donors got mad in '06 and '08. They are tired of the same people asking for money every cycle, especially when we aren't winning," he said.

Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call, however, said he believes Republicans this year will have sufficient resources to compete with the Democrats.

"We will be able to draw contrasts," he said. "We're going to be aggressive under the First Amendment."

Karen E. Crummy: 303-954-1594 or kcrummy@denverpost.com; twitter.com/karencrummy

View the original article here