(MintPress) – As activists and government watchdog organizations fight to get rid of large corporate campaign sponsors, the Democratic and Republican Parties are forging ahead with the help of a system that allows them to do just that.
While Republicans had led the super Political Action Committee (PAC) and “social welfare organization” campaign advertisement movement, Democrats are now joining in a big way, going against the argument they’ve touted that large corporations should not be allowed to give unlimited campaign donations.
The issue at the heart of this debate is Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door for corporations and unions to donate to federal elections, with the High Court recognizing such contributions as a form of free speech. It’s a ruling that’s been met with controversy by activists and government watchdog groups, which have typically received the support of Democrats.
Just this week, Democratic Minority House Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi said on MSNBC that she and her fellow Democrats would work to overturn Citizens United, speaking of it as a top priority. This is just one month after her party outspent the Republicans in Super PAC spending.
Yet with Democrats now pulling ahead of Republicans in their abuse of the ruling, it’s looking more unlikely than ever that Democrats will maintain their opposition to the idea that corporations are people, too.
While super PACs are playing a large role in this election cycle, their nonprofit counterparts posing as social welfare organizations are forging ahead just as aggressively, with the luxury of hiding their corporate donors, citing their rights as a 501(c)(4).
The money, big money
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that liberal super PACs outdid their conservative counterparts in August, in terms of spending, for the first time ever.
In August, Democratic candidates received $19 million in campaign donations, made up of individual donations of $200 or more. During the same time period, conservative super PACs raked in $18.3 million, roughly.
Prior to that, however, conservatives were leading the way. Statistics reported at the end of June showed right-leaning super PACs were winning over, with the top 15 groups made up primarily of conservative action committees, according to the Fiscal Times.
The top liberal super PACs, as of June, were Priorities USA Action and Majority PAC, which together raised a combined $30 million for campaign funding geared toward the Obama campaign. That’s compared to the top two conservative super PACs, Restore Our Future and American Crossroads (which also acts as a social welfare organization) together raised roughly $121 million.
So while Democrats gained ground in August, there’s still a way to go before they catch up.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?
Super PACs have been the target of controversy regarding big money in campaigns, with opponents arguing that if only a few privileges corporations or people can speak power through money, the integrity of American democracy, intended to give voice to everyday people, would be compromised.
But to some extent, super PACs are at least held to a series of regulations, intended to provide transparency for the voting public. A registered super PAC has to at least reveal where its funding is coming from, to an extent. Organizations registered as social welfare organizations on the other hand do not.
Just this summer, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), urging it to mandate American Crossroads’ Crossroads GPS, a conservative “social welfare” organization responsible for conservative campaign ads, to reveal its donors.
The campaign argued Crossroads GPS was hiding itself as a social welfare organization, when it was, indeed, a political action committee, or super PAC.
Under current law, nonprofit organizations registered as social welfare organizations don’t have to do so, as long as the primary purpose of the organization is to promote social issues.
While American Crossroads does stand for a set of social principles, it’s made its name in the political campaign world, funding commercials that attack the president. And because of its status, donors behind such ads are not made known to the public.
The Obama campaign isn’t the only group trying to force Crossroads GPS to come out of the social welfare shadows. In September, watchdog groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center penned a letter to the IRS, arguing that Crossroads GPS should be rid of its tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3).
The two organizations claimed that the ads aired by GPS are not issue ads, but rather specifically focused on the political campaigns.
“There is no question that Crossroads GPS does not meet the standard for tax-exempt status as a section 501 (c)(3) ‘social welfare’ organization,” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said in a press release.
He goes on to point out that Karl Rove, founder of the organization, spent more than $53 million on ads that either come down on Obama or promote Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. To be precise, he points to the fact that 47 of the 60 ads ran by GPS from Jan. 1 to Sept. 24, 2012 mention Obama or Senate candidates who were actively campaigning.
“The fact that all of its ads that mention Senate candidates have been in contested Senate races considered key to who controls the Senate is further evidence that the overriding purpose of Crossroads GPS is to influence elections and that it is in reality a campaign operation,” Wertheimer said.
Future of campaign ads in America
The argument against political action committees posing as social welfare organizations right now has the president and his party on its side. But that same party stood strongly against unlimited corporate campaigning, too.
Now, with liberals catching up, at least in August, in terms of super PAC spending, how long before they join the social welfare organization movement, allowing anonymous donors to contribute without allowing voter transparency.
And if that happens, who will stand up for the American people, those of whom are fighting for a democracy where people’s voices speak just as loud as corporate special interests? In this case, time will be the test for the party.
Pelosi’s claim that she and fellow Democrats will work to overturn Citizens United is, at this point, just another political promise. Until the work is done, it remains to be seen what the political campaign climate of the future will be.