Quote:

---

Conservative donors may be feeling especially generous this election season. And, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, they have an abundance of options of how to best funnel money to their preferred candidates. With eight months to go 'til Election Day, 942 super PACs have already popped up ( https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php), raising more than $140 million thus far.

But as these political groups solicit millions of dollars from donors big and small, not all of them are using their donations for their purported purpose.

Federal Election Commission PAC data ( http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/ftpsum.shtml) shows that several large political action committees and super PACs are spending most of their donations on “overhead” expenditures, with miniscule percentages going to actual political candidates.

Scam PACs

In 2009, Iraq War veteran and unsuccessful Congressional candidate Kieran Michael Lalor (R) registered a political action committee called Iraq Veterans for Congress ( https://web.archive.org/web/20090802011028/http://iraqvetsforcongress.
com/). Its stated aim: to “Recruit, Fund and Elect to Congress conservative Republican Iraq Veterans.” But while the committee raised and spent more than $800,000 before the 2010 elections ( https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00459412&cycle
=2010), just $48,000 (less than 6 percent) went to donations to candidates, as most of its funds went to outside fundraisers and printing shops. Now called the Afghanistan & Iraq Veterans for Congress PAC, the committee continues to be a prime example of a breed of PACs that spend a huge amount on political consultants and little on actually political action.

Though its website has been defunct ( http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com/) since late last year, Afghanistan & Iraq Veterans for Congress PAC reported $469,967.46 in 2013 expenses ( http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_14940318099+0) — just $9,000 of that (under 2 percent) on candidate contributions. While it is not unusual for political committees to make more of their campaign expenditures in even-numbered years, when most elections take place, the committee’s -$14,359.04 cash-on-hand total would hardly indicate the committee is saving up its funds.

None of the committees or companies responded to a request for comment on their activities, but the information included comes from public filings.

Afghanistan & Iraq Veterans for Congress PAC paid $64,485.31 (more than 13 percent of total spending) last year to a company called Base Connect, a controversial ( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/29/firm_gets_big_cu
t_of_campaign_donations/?page=3) Republican fundraising firm ( http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E2JDL00.htm) that claims ( http://www.base-connect.com/about) to use “proven, highly-effective direct mail strategies to raise the critical dollars required to make a conservative primary or general election challenge viable and winnable,” but has been frequently criticized ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/13/fundraisers-show-littl
e-cash-for-cain/?page=all, http://billpascoe.net/detail.php?c=928518, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEAQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tampabay.com%2Famericas-worst-charities%2Fsolicitors%2Fbase-connect&ei=WBonU6zgGZGIogSH74KABA&usg=AFQjCNFnejTGDG1oFNJsHi9g40l--xkidQ&sig2=WNJvVRrFxE86hZSO2FhpOA&bvm=bv.62922401,d.cGU) for its high fees and low return.

The Conservative StrikeForce, a PAC chaired by former Reagan administration Deputy Labor Secretary Dennis Whitfield, asks donors for funds on the claim that it “is dedicated to electing true conservatives to all levels of government” ( https://secure.giveworks.net/strikeforce/donate). But in 2013, it spent about $2.2 million ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00457291) while using just about $27,000 ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?cycle=2014&cmte=C004
57291) on an independent expenditure and $7,000 on donations to a pair of state-level candidates. Whitfield received $12,500 in consulting fees and Base Connect received more than $102,000 for direct mail — and the PAC ended the year with less than $64,000 left in the bank ( http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_14960284868+0).

Similarly, Freedom’s Defense Fund, which boasts ( http://www.freedomsdefensefund.com/about) that because it has “no office, overhead or staff,” it is uniquely positioned to “rebuild an American conservative majority” and back “conservative, pro-freedom candidates.” The group’s $1,641,005 ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00401786) in 2013 spending included $50,000 in independent expenditures, less than $75,000 to political candidates, and more than $1.2 million in fundraising ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2014&cmte=C
00401786). $146,278 of that went to Base Connect, and the group ended the year with just $65,184.23 in the bank.

InfoCision Management Corporation, has received even more money from conservative PACs for fundraising. The company, which calls itself “the nation’s second-largest privately held teleservices company” ( http://www.infocision.com/companyInfo/Pages/default.aspx), agreed to pay $75,000 and change its practices after Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) accused it of illegal charitable solicitation practices ( http://www.cleveland.com/consumeraffairs/index.ssf/2012/04/infocision_
to_pay_75000_to_set.html).

Despite InfoCision’s questionable track record ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/charitable-donations-benefit-te
lemarketers/2012/09/14/9486b708-fcf9-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html), numerous conservative political committees gave the first six- and seven-figure payments last year for fundraising, often giving more of their funds to the firm than all other expenditures combined.

While these and numerous other InfoCision- and Base Camp-tied PACs are raising money without being clear about where the donors’ contributions really go, these practices are likely legal in the current anything-goes campaign finance climate. In the Wild West West campaign finance culture that the Supreme Court and broken Federal Election Commission have created, donors may find that their political donations are doing little other than enriching political consultants and vendors. Much more at http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/03/07/3362891/meet-scam-pacs/

---

Quote:

---

Inside Game: Creating PACs and then Spending Their Money

Yet an examination of the PACs’ expenditures shows they spent a small percentage of the money they raised on work directly aimed at getting candidates elected -- paid ads, say, or contributions to other political committees. Mainly, they paid consultants. And the biggest chunk of that consultant money went to Russo, Marsh and Associates, and people connected to the firm.

Of the $9.3 million spent by Our Country Deserves Better, more than $3.8 million went to Russo, Marsh and Associates, employees or others connected to the firm. Of the $3.9 million spent by the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, $2.4 million went to the firm and its associates. The pro-military Move America Forward Freedom PAC spent almost $143,000. Of that, $92,000 went to the firm and people connected to it.

Some of that money went for travel, or for ads funneled through the consultants. But most was for consulting, fundraising fees and administrative help.

It’s rare for the people who form PACs to pay and treat themselves quite so generously. In addition to paying Russo, Marsh an assortment of fees, the PACs spent money so its principals could travel well: from almost $1,300 for meals at a fondue restaurant in Ohio on Oct. 18, to more than $50,000 for consultants and staff to occasionally stay at a golf resort on Lake Michigan last fall.

Meanwhile, the people who gave money had no idea that such amounts would go to consultants, not to the nuts and bolts efforts to get preferred candidates elected and their opponents defeated. http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-game-creating-pacs-and-then-s
pending-their-money

---

Quote:

---

The three largest super-PACs, Restore Our Future, American Crossroads and Priorities USA Action, spent proportionally less on operating expenses than the average of all super-PACs. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-04/post-campaign-super-pac-cash-
still-flowing-to-consultants.html

---

Quote:

---

Priorities USA Action, which supported Obama, put $7.6 million into salaries and other administrative expenses as it raised more than $63 million. Same

---

Quote:

---

Revolution PAC raised $1.2 million by pitching itself as a booster for Texas Representative Ron Paul’s run for president. Under the direction of Gary Franchi, the group spent $1 million, 83 percent of its cash, on administrative expenses, including about $153,000 for himself and his companies. A $1,766 monthly fee for “office rent” went to a Franchi company whose address is a mailbox at a Northbrook, Illinois, UPS Store. Same

---

Quote:

---

The new filings show that liberal groups, which in many cases outperformed their conservative counterparts, typically paid their executives less money. Liberal super PAC, nonprofit and labor salaries tend to land in the $250,000 to the (at most) $600,000 range, while many conservative organizers are pulling in at least a half-million, and several make into the millions over an election cycle. Findings from the new IRS 990 forms include:

Steven Law, the president of the American Crossroads super PAC and its tax-exempt affiliate, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, made $1.1 million during the election cycle. That includes $602,935 from Crossroads GPS in 2011 and $637,562 in 2012. Together the super PAC and the nonprofit spent more than $325 million on the election but had an underwhelming return on investment. According to the Sunlight Foundation, 1.3 percent of the super PAC’s money supported candidates who won and opposed candidates who lost in the general election. The Crossroads GPS return on investment was 14.4 percent.

Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY’s List, a political organization that supports female Democrats who back abortion rights, received a $263,194 salary for the entire 2012 cycle, according to Political MoneyLine data derived from FEC reports. The EMILY’s List super PAC Women Vote spent $7.7 million in the 2012 elections and had an 80 percent return on investment, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

Rebecca Burkett, a little-known campaign consultant from Georgia, made more running Winning Our Future, the super PAC that backed losing GOP presidential nominee and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, than many of the nation’s leading labor union presidents make in a year. Burkett earned more than $500,000 during her tenure as the Gingrich super PAC’s chief organizer, according to Political MoneyLine. By comparison, Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which spent $23 million on the election, made $288,303 during the 2012 calendar year.

The top GOP super PAC backing Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, listed no salary lines or payroll recipients by name on its FEC public disclosures. This drew fire from watchdogs who complained that the super PAC shared vendors and even consultants with Romney, violating rules that bar coordination between candidates and the outside groups that back them.

At the center of those complaints was GOP fundraiser Steve Roche, who ran a fundraising firm called Podium Capital Group. As the super PAC’s top vendor, that firm was paid $7.3 million by Restore Our Future, according to the CRP. But how much of a cut went to Roche — whether 2 percent or 12 percent, both within industry standards — remains unanswered. Roche did not return a message seeking comment. Excerpts from http://www.rollcall.com/news/super_pac_outside_spending_chiefs_make_bi
g_bucks-230166-1.html?pg=1

---

Quote:

---

Republicans spend more on campaign consulting, while Democrats spend more on personnel ( http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/10/campaign-spending-habits-democ
rats-v-republicans.html).

Are Democrats just paying their staff the big bucks? Not quite. Federal Election Commission (FEC) records of campaign paychecks found that seven of the Romney campaign’s senior staffers earned more than Team Obama’s top dog, Jim Messina ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/19/romneys-high
est-paid-campaign-staffers-made-more-than-obamas/). ....the average Republican campaign staffer brought home $478 more per paycheck than the average Democratic staffer. http://news.yahoo.com/super-pac-cash-got-spent-104500595--politics.htm
l

---