Elections Archives - Page 9 of 9 - The National Law Forum

GOP Super PAC Men Seek to Overturn Donation Limits: Conservatives Set Sights on Repealing Election-Cycle Contribution Limits to Candidates

An article by Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity was recently published in The National Law Review. The article discussed Donation Limits from PAC’s:

GOP super PAC men want to make it easier to donate to dozens of candidates

Conservatives set sights on repealing election-cycle contribution limits to candidates

As unlimited contributions flow into super PACs this year, one man is at the center of a new effort to allow people to donate more money, to more candidates, at the national stage.

^{“I don’t believe government is there to limit us,” Shaun McCutcheon told iWatch News.}

McCutcheon is a 44-year-old general contractor in Alabama. He’s the owner, founder and president of Coalmont Electrical Development. He’s a member of the Republican Party who admits he may have a bit of a libertarian streak. And he’s also the treasurer of a super PAC called the “Conservative Action Fund.”

That’s a group that spent more than $43,000 opposing House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) in Tuesday’s GOP primary in Alabama, although it has mostly targeted Democrats with its attacks.

In one advertisement it produced last fall, the super PAC accused President Barack Obama of implementing “draconian laws and regulations.” And it aired another adthat featured a “surfing rabbi” and computer-animated versions of Obama, along with New York Democrats Anthony Weiner and David Weprin, dancing in hot dog costumes — all while encouraging voters to support Republican Bob Turner in the special election to replace Weiner after his sexting scandal.

Now McCutcheon is requesting that the FEC repeal the existing biennial limit on how much money individuals can donate to federal candidates.

McCutcheon wants to donate at least $51,900 to multiple federal candidates ahead of the elections this November, spread across more than two dozen conservative politicians, according to documents released by the FEC on Wednesday.

Campaign finance laws, however, currently cap the amount of money individuals can donate to federal candidates at $46,200. (That amount is increased slightly for inflation during odd-numbered years. In 2010, the aggregate limit for donations to candidates during the two-year election cycle was $45,600.)

Federal rules prohibit a person from giving more than $2,500 per candidate per election, with the primary and general election being viewed as separate elections. McCutcheon says he doesn’t want to exceed that amount to any one candidate; he just wants to be able to donate to more candidates than the current cap allows.

Some simple algebra indicates a person would reach the current aggregate limit by giving $2,500 a piece to about 18.5 candidates, or by giving $5,000 a piece to about 9.25 candidates. McCutcheon, according to the request filed with the FEC, wants to donate to 27, all of whom are challengers, with the exceptions of incumbent Reps. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus who unsuccessfully ran for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

A question of corruption

In his request before the FEC, McCutcheon is represented by attorneys Steve Hoersting, and Dan Backer of the D.C.-based DB Capitol Strategies and Jerad Najvar of the Houston-based Najvar Law Firm.

Hoersting, who co-founded the First Amendment rights-focused Center for Competitive Politics, and Backer are experienced campaign finance litigators. Their successes include 2011’s Carey v. Federal Election Commission federal court ruling, which granted most political action committees the ability receive unlimited contributions to fund independent political advertisements in a segregated bank account, separate from the money they typically collect to dole out donations to candidates.

These men believe that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions on political advertisements, provides a “solid” foundation for bringing forward McCutcheon’s request at this moment in time.

“The Supreme Court has been clear: campaign finance laws are constitutional when they prevent the corruption of candidates, and unconstitutional when they constrain some speakers to equalize others,” Hoersting told iWatch News.

“An aggregate limit on how much one individual can give to all candidates,” he continued, “constrains speakers without preventing either any additional corruption of candidates or circumvention of the $2,500 limit that any single candidate may receive.”

But not all campaign finance observers agree.

Paul Ryan, an attorney at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which favors campaign finance regulations, says the limit reduces the threat of corruption.

Absent that limit, Ryan argues, a wealthy donor, if he or she wanted, could give $2,500 or even $5,000 to all 535 members of Congress. Furthermore, that donor could also write $5,000 checks to each and every challenger to “ensure access” even if the incumbents lose. And if a wealthy donor gave millions of dollars to every candidate and officeholder, “the public would most certainly be left with the reasonable impression that the wealthy donor had all of Congress in [his or her] pocket.”

“This would surely undermine the electorate’s faith in our democracy,” he said.

For his part, McCutcheon has already donated more than $143,000 to federal candidates and political committees, according to an iWatch News analysis of campaign finance filings with the FEC.

He’s only donated $7,500 to federal candidates — $2,500 to Alabama Republican House candidate Scott Beason and $5,000 to Ohio Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel. The bulk of McCutcheon’s giving this cycle has been to his super PAC, the Conservative Action Fund, to which he has contributed $82,300, including $75,000 in loans.

This election cycle, he also loaned a hefty chunk of change to another super PAC that he was involved with: “America Get Up,” which he gave $31,500, about half of which was repaid before the super PAC, which was formed in March of 2011, closed its doors last summer.

McCutcheon served as the treasurer of the now-defunct group, which was founded by Dale Peterson, the quick-talking, horse-riding, cowboy hat-wearing, gun-toting candidate for the Alabama Agriculture Commissioner whose first campaign ad in 2010 became an internet phenomenon.

Backer, of DB Capitol Strategies, was also involved with both America Get Up and the Conservative Action Fund, and as the assistant treasurer for each group, he regularly filed their paperwork with the FEC.

FEC may not have final say

While individuals are free to donate as much as they please to super PACs, that’s not the case with federal candidates, party committees or traditional PACs. And some say this new request before the FEC is unlikely to change that any time soon.

“The FEC has absolutely no authority to grant this request,” Larry Noble, an attorney who specializes in campaign finance law at D.C.-based firm Skadden, Arps, toldiWatch News. “A federal agency cannot declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.”

The existing contribution limits were set by Congress in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often called the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance law after its chief sponsors in the U.S. Senate.

Action by the judicial branch of government would be required to declare the election-cycle aggregate contribution limits unconstitutional. And if the courts become involved in this fight, some political observers say the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts may be sympathetic to McCutcheon’s case.

One such person is Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California-Irvine law school.

“I’ve thought for a long time that the aggregate limits could be in trouble before the Roberts Court,” Hasen told iWatch News.

That may be precisely where McCutcheon’s legal team hopes their case goes.

“I would not be surprised if the FEC is not the final stop in this matter,” said attorney Backer.

Drug Lobby Gave $9.4 Million to Nonprofits that Spent Big on 2010 Election

An article by Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity regarding a Drug Lobby’s contribution to the 2010 Elections recently appeared in The National Law Review:

PhRMA gives largest chunk of $4.5 million to conservative group, American Action Network

The drug lobby’s trade association was a multimillion-dollar donor to nonprofit groups that were actively working to elect federal candidates during the 2010 election, an iWatch News analysis of documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service reveals.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA, doled out $9.4 million to 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit groups, some of which paid for ads that influenced races in the 2010 midterm election, records show.

In 2010, PhRMA gave about $20 million in “grants and other assistance” to more than 200 nonprofit organizations, including five politically active 501(c)(4) nonprofits, both liberal and conservative, which together received nearly half of the funds.

The groups were: the American Action Network, the American Future Fund, Americans for Tax Reform, America’s Families First, Inc. and the Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund.

PhRMA’s largest gift in 2010 was a $4.5 million contribution to the American Action Network, a conservative 501(c)(4) that spent big money on a half-dozen high-profile U.S. Senate races and more than two dozen U.S. House races.

In 2010, American Action reported spending more than $26 million on ads to the Federal Election Commission. That was more than any other politically active nonprofit group, with the exception of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Overall, the American Action Network reportedly raised more than $30 million in 2010, meaning PhRMA alone was responsible for close to 15 percent of the group’s funds.

Unlike the notorious “super PACs” that have had a major impact on the 2012 presidential election, the nonprofits are not required to reveal their donors. Spending by these groups on political advertisements skyrocketed in the wake of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissiondecision.

They do file annual returns, however, to the Internal Revenue Service. The 990 filing covering calendar year 2010 for PhRMA, which is organized under section 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code as a trade association, was received by the IRS in mid-November. Many of the contributions to politically active groups detailed in that filing have never been previously reported.

During 2010, PhRMA spent $22 million on federal lobbying. A top priority was the massive health care reform bill championed by congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama.

PhRMA’s PAC donated $195,300 directly to federal candidates and political action committees, with about 63 percent of that money flowing to Democrats, according to iWatch News’ analysis of records filed with the FEC.

Matthew Bennett, PhRMA’s senior vice president, told iWatch News that his group often makes contributions to other organizations that support its mission, and as such PhRMA gave money to a “variety of organizations” in 2010.

Officials at the politically active nonprofits that received money from PhRMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The American Action Network was launched in February 2010 by top Republicans including former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Rob Collins, a former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Coleman, who currently serves as chairman of the board of the group, was brought on as a “senior government advisor” last April at the law firm and lobby shop Hogan Lovells, one of the three dozen lobbying firms retained by PhRMA.

Maria Cino, President George W. Bush’s deputy secretary of transportation who became a lobbyist for drug-maker Pfizer in 2009, also sits on the board of the American Action Network.

Other conservative-supporting 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups that reaped rewards from PhRMA included Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, which received $75,000, and the American Future Fund, which received $300,000.

For its part, the American Future Fund spent nearly $9.6 million on ads during the 2010 election, including one against Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) that linked him with the proposed mosque in New York City near Ground Zero, as iWatch News previously reported. The New York Times called the American Future Fund the most successful outside spending group during the 2010 midterms.

Meanwhile, Americans for Tax Reform spent more than $4.1 million on more than a dozen House and Senate races.

Two liberal groups received seven-figure donations from PhRMA in 2010: the Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, which collected $2.5 million, and America’s Families First, Inc., which received $2 million.

The Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, also called the CSS Action Fund, spent nearly $1.4 million during the 2010 election cycle on so-called “electioneering communications,” or issue ads that mention candidates but don’t explicitly tell viewers to vote for or against them.

The nonprofit reported activity in four races: the Washington Senate race in support of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Colorado Senate race in support of Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), the West Virginia Senate race in support of Democrat Joe Manchin and the U.S. House race in New York’s 20th Congressional District in support of Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.).

Meanwhile, America’s Families First, Inc. didn’t directly spend money on any advertisements ahead of the 2010 midterms. However, the group did form a super PAC and transfer $1 million from its 501(c)(4) arm into the new super PAC.

America’s Families First’s super PAC spent nearly $5.9 million during the 2010 elections in more than 20 U.S. House races.

Notably, PhRMA also made a contribution of $356,075 for general support to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Scholarship Fund,” a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that received intense media scrutiny last year for creating corporate-backed “model legislation” for ALEC’s state lawmaker- members to introduce in statehouses.

Help for Super PACs on its Way: At Least Four Cabinet Members May Go to Bat for Democratic Super PACs

An article regarding Super PAC’s was recently published in The National Law Review by Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity:

Fundraising activities are limited, but star power brings in the bucks

At least four Cabinet members appear ready and willing to answer President Barack Obama’s call to help fill the coffers of Democratic outside spending groups, which have to date been badly outgunned by better-funded Republican organizations.

After previously denouncing the so-called “super PACs” as a “threat to democracy,” Obama signed off last week on a move to allow top campaign aides and high-level White House officials to raise money.

Some of those going to bat for the president have long histories of raising money for their own political careers, and even bundling money for Obama’s campaign four years ago.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk have all indicated they would be open to participation in activities designed to help the nascent Democratic super PACs, like “Priorities USA Action,” raise money.

“Arne has spoken at campaign-related events in the past on his personal time,” Education spokesman Justin Hamilton told iWatch News. “While he doesn’t yet have any invitations to future events, any that he might attend will be done in strict compliance with the law.”

A similar willingness was also expressed by Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher, whose boss raised more than $13.5 million for his own U.S. Senate campaigns before Obama asked him to become Secretary of the Interior in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Any invitation for the Secretary to speak at campaign events will be considered in the same way we evaluate all scheduling requests, which includes making sure that all appearances fully comply with rules governing political activity,” Fetcher told iWatch News.

A spokesperson in the office of the U.S. Trade Representative likewise noted that whatever campaign-related activities Kirk may engage in would be cleared by the general counsel’s office in advance.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Kirk has helped Obama’s team raise money: He personally bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign four years ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

This nexus of power and the chase for campaign cash doesn’t sit well with many good-government advocates, especially when there’s no limit on how much money donors can give to super PACs.

“This brings into focus the whole issue of access and influence,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that frequently supports campaign finance reforms. “When you give money, you get access and influence – a way to be heard differently from everyone else.”

Obama’s change of heart was clearly due to the fundraising disadvantageDemocratic super PACs and nonprofits have experienced compared to their Republican counterparts.

Generally speaking, federal law prohibits top White House officials like Cabinet secretaries from using their positions to raise money for candidates. The Hatch Act allows government officials to personally donate money to political committees or engage in a variety of partisan activities, so long as they do so during their personal time and do not use government resources.

They may not solicit campaign contributions — but that doesn’t prohibit them from appearing at political fundraisers.

Last year, several administration officials, including Duncan and Chu, appeared at fundraising events for the Obama campaign, as part of a “speakers series,” in which donors contributed money and mingled with high-level White House officials.

Those events, even while upholding the letter of the law, earned criticism from many Republicans, including Karl Rove, the former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

“What they’re doing is establishing a process by which you can buy influence,” Rove said at the time.

Rove himself had appeared at fundraisers for Bush during his time as a White House aide. He also helped operate a “political boiler room” within the White House that was criticized in an official Office of Special Counsel report last year.

Meanwhile, some other seasoned rainmakers in Obama’s Cabinet won’t be on the fundraising stump.

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign four years ago, will not be participating in any fundraising events for either the new super PACs or the president.

The same is true of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $200 million during her unsuccessful presidential run in 2008 – and more than $80 million during her two U.S. Senate bids after leaving the White House.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Attorney General Eric Holder, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are among other top Obama administration officials who are not expected to appear at any fundraisers.

“Longstanding Department of Defense policy requires that the Secretary and all Senate-confirmed and non-career senior executive service officials refrain from participating in partisan political activities,” said Carl Woog, a DOD spokesman.

LaHood — who raised about $7 million over his career as a congressman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — “hasn’t and won’t be participating in any political fundraising,” said DOT spokesman Justin Nisly.

Super PACs were created last year in the wake of two federal court rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. They can collect unlimited amounts of money from individuals, unions and corporations to spend on advertising to elect or defeat candidates, but cannot illegally coordinate with the candidates themselves or make direct contributions.

Not everyone is concerned about Cabinet members being involved in the super PAC money chase.

“You don’t lose your rights to free speech just because you hold public office,” conservative attorney Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies said. “You may have a public trust, but you shouldn’t lose your free speech rights.”

Copyright Lessons from the Campaign Trail: Romney, Gingrich and Fair Use

Recently found in The National Law Reviewwas an article by Geri L. Haight of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Copyrights and Fair Use:

This Republican primary season has provided lots of fodder for political blogs, but it has also provided a few gems relating to — what else — trademark issues. Now, U.S. copyright law is in the spotlight of the Republican primary campaign. First, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is considering whether to pull a television ad that is comprised wholly of a 30 second clip from a January 21, 1997 episode of NBC’s “Nightly News” program hosted by Tom Brokaw. The Romney ad is entitled “History Lesson” and can be viewed here. In the ad, Brokaw announces the House Ethics Committee’s decision to penalize then-Speaker Newt Gingrich. The ad contains no other voiceover or images. It ends simply with a Romney disclaimer (“Paid For By ….) and the statement that Romney approves the ad. NBC has sent the Romney campaign a cease and desist letter, alleging that the ad constitutes copyright infringement. Tom Brokaw has expressed that he is “extremely uncomfortable” with the use of his personal image. Romney’s campaign asserts that its use of the news clip “falls within fair use” and, therefore, does not violate copyright laws.

Second, Romney’s primary opponent in the race for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich, has copyright troubles of his own. On Monday, Gingrich was sued in Illinois by a former member of the band Survivor (under the name “Rude Music”) for his use of the song “Eye of the Tiger” at campaign events. The complaint asserts that Gingrich is “sophisticated and knowledgeable” of federal copyright law, citing Gingrich’s tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives during which the Copyright Act underwent several revisions. As evidence of Gingrich’s further familiarity with copyright laws, Rude Music cites Gingrich’s recent criticism of the Stop Online Piracy Act at the Republican primary debate in South Carolina. During that debate, Gingrich is quoted in the complaint as saying: “We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.” In the complaint, Rude Music seeks an injunction and unspecified monetary damages based on Gingrich’s unauthorized public performances of the song.

Romney’s and Gingrich’s recent copyright troubles involve the defense of fair use. So, what is that? This defense to a charge of copyright infringement is provided in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. This provision sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

In Romney’s situation, NBC’s position seems to be focused largely on the first factor — its assessment that use of the news clip is commercial in nature. The clip is used in a political ad that seeks, among other things, donations to fund Romney’s campaign against Gingrich. But Romney’s campaign has stressed that it used only 30 seconds of a much longer broadcast and that it is using the clip for the content of the facts conveyed (regarding Gingrich’s past ethics violations), not for the particular style of the delivery of those facts. And Romney seems to be using the clip to comment on Gingrich’s representations during the campaign regarding these past ethics violations. The risk for the Romney campaign, however, may be the problem with reliance on the fair use in general, identified by the U.S. Copyright Office itself: “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.” But maybe that’s the point. The Romney ad is certainly getting lots of attention due to NBC’s assertion of a copyright infringement claim.

In Gingrich’s case, there are arguments for and against application of the fair use factors for both sides. Again, because the songs are played at campaign events, there is an arguable commercial component to the use. But there are also arguments about the use being political speech and commentary (given the theme of Gingrich’s underdog status). The case involves claims that arise frequently in the content of political campaigns (e.g., Jackson Browne sued John McCain in 2008 based on the candidate’s use of the song “Running on Empty” in an ad mocking then candidate Barack Obama’s energy policies). Though common, most cases settle early so that we do not have a wealth of case law resolving this issue.

NBC and Rude Music have both expressed false endorsement and right of publicity concerns. By using the NBC news clip, does the public believe that NBC and/or Brokaw endorse Romney? Or does the band Survivor endorse Gingrich because Gingrich uses “Eye of the Tige” at his campaign events? Clearly, this perception is a concern to Brokaw, who has stated that he does not “want [his] role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign[.]“ In a world where journalists are perceived as favoring one political party or the other (e.g., Fox News or MSNBC) and musicians take sides in political fights (e.g., Springsteen endorsing Obama or Wayne Newton endorsing Bachmann), such a claim may have legs.

‘Outsider’ Candidate Santorum Collected Millions in Corporate PAC Money

An article published in the National Law Review recently by Josh Israel and Aaron Mehta of the Center for Public Integrity regarding Candidate Santorum’s PAC Campaign Donations:

Santorum’s corporate backers: Santorum took on ‘special interests’ while collecting millions in corporate PAC money

Who bankrolled Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum the presidential candidate casts himself as a Washington outsider, “one of the most successful government reformers in our history,” according to his campaign bio, “taking on Washington’s powerful special interests from the moment he arrived in our nation’s capital.”

But Rick Santorum the House and Senate member received more than $11 million in contributions from corporate and other special interest political action committees (PACs) over his career, according to a Center for Public Integrity investigation.

Among the largest donors are giants from the telecommunications, tobacco, and banking industries, the analysis found. The Center examined contributions to the Pennsylvanian’s congressional, senatorial and 2012 presidential campaigns — as well as his “America’s Foundation” and “Fight PAC” leadership PACs, entities set up by Santorum to aid others in their political campaigns.

Corporate PACs connected to telecommunications firms that became today’s AT&T Inc. poured more than $98,000 into Santorum’s campaign coffers, making the behemoth his top career patron.

Those donations may have been rewarded with support for the industry; in 1996 Santorum was one of 91 Senators to approve the heavily lobbied rewrite of telecommunications law that deregulated the industry.

Government watchdog group Common Cause decried the industry for “buying” the legislation.

Verizon Communications Inc. (and companies now part of the Verizon empire, including GTE, Bell Atlantic Corp., NYNEX and Verizon Wireless, a joint venture with British wireless giant Vodafone Group PLC), also made the top-ten (No. 6), with more than $75,000 in corporate PAC contributions.

Santorum’s second-highest total came from the Altria Group, including predecessor companies like the Philip Morris Companies and U.S. Tobacco. The makers of Marlboro cigarettes and Skoal tobacco have spent more than $96,000 in PAC funds to advance Santorum’s political career.

Santorum, a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, opposed increased restrictions on the tobacco industry — joining with 39 other Republicans and two tobacco-state-Democrats to kill the 1998 Universal Tobacco Settlement Act.

The bill aimed to “prevent the use of tobacco products by minors” and to “redress the adverse health effects of tobacco use.” It also would have incorporated a settlement requiring the industry to pay billions of dollars to state governments. After Congress failed to pass it, a narrower settlement was reached between the tobacco companies and state attorneys general.

In addition, documents made public as a result of the tobacco settlement with the states indicate that representatives from Philip Morris communicated with then-Rep. Santorum in 1994 during the debate on the Clinton health care reform proposals.

A March 20, 1994, interoffice memo notes that several company employees attending public meetings with Santorum reported “very positive” conversations aimed at ensuring his opposition to an increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

Santorum’s Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 backers were all financial services companies. Bank of America Corp. and companies it has acquired gave more than $92,000; PNC Financial Services Group Inc., a Pittsburgh-based bank, gave more than $87,000; JPMorgan Chase & Co. gave at least $76,000; Wells Fargo & Co. gave more than $73,000; and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. gave more than $69,000.

Santorum served on the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and was one of 54 senators to back the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (commonly known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley), a bank deregulation law signed by President Clinton.

That law eliminated several restrictions on the size and scope of banks, precipitating the mergers that allowed these and other financial services giants to merge and grow. The law has been blamed for setting the stage for the financial collapse of 2008 and resulting recession. Despite the banks’ largesse, Santorum has been a vocal opponent of the Troubled Asset Relief Program bank bailout, often using it as a club against other Republican candidates.

Rounding out the top 10 were GlaxoSmithKline PLC (more than $68,000), a pharmaceutical company, and energy powerhouse Exelon Corp. (more than $67,000).

Corporate PACs are funded by employees who may give up to $5,000 per calendar year. The PAC itself may give $5,000 per election to candidates. These PACs are usually controlled by the corporation’s chief lobbyist.

It should be no surprise that Santorum’s donors are among the biggest corporate interests in the country.

The anti-tax lobbying group Club for Growth rates Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate as “above average,” while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave him a 100 percent rating for 2005.

And if elected, it is likely Santorum will continue his support for business.

On his website he promises to cut the corporate tax rate in half “to make our businesses competitive around the world,” eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers and sharply reduce taxes on repatriated foreign income. The Center recently reported on how the issue of repatriation is currently a cause célèbre for many large corporations.

As Bloomberg reported recently, since his 2006 Senate re-election defeat, Santorum has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in directors’ fees and stock options from Universal Health Services Inc. Though it did not rank among his top patrons, Santorum received at least $11,500 from that company’s PAC.

Santorum later received a consulting contract with Consol Energy Inc., reportedly worth more than $140,000. The Pennsylvania-based company donated almost $20,000 to Santorum while he was in office. The Center previously reported on Consol’s long-wall mining operations in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Santorum’s campaign did respond to a request for comment on this story.

Here is a list of Santorum’s top 10 political action committee donors:

AT&T – at least $98,603

Altria – at least $96,500

Bank of America – at least $92,250

PNC – at least $87,805

JPMorgan Chase – at least $76,000

Verizon – at least $75,165

Wells Fargo – at least $73,050

Bank of New York Mellon – at least $69,374

GlaxoSmithKline – at least $68,305

Exelon – at least $67,589

Source: Center for Public Integrity analysis of contributions from political action committees to Rick Santorum’s congressional, senatorial, and presidential campaign committees and leadership PACs: “America’s Foundation” and “Fight PAC.” Data was obtained from subscription-only CQ-MoneyLine, and covered Santorum’s first campaign, in 1989-1990. The data was retrieved Jan. 4, 2012.

Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks during a town hall meeting in South Carolina.David Goldman/AP

‘Super PACs’ Spend $13 Million on Early Primaries, Romney Top Beneficiary

Posted previously by the National Law Review, an article by The Center for Public Integrity regarding Super PACs Spending on Early Primaries:

New outside spending groups, dubbed super PACs, that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, spent $12.9 million in Iowa and other early GOP battleground states through New Year’s Day, according to an analysis of federal data.

The top beneficiary was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. A total of $4.6 million was spent to help the nominal front-runner, the vast majority for ads torpedoing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Second was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who benefited from $3.7 million in outside spending.

According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission data,12 outside super PACs spent money, mostly on advertising, with the intention of electing or defeating a GOP presidential candidate. Ten have not yet reported their donors. The two that have did so last summer.

The upshot is that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, all of whose contests will be held this month, won’t know who is paying for much of the advertising they see until after their votes are cast.

The next reports on donors aren’t due until January 31, the day of the Florida primary.

Federal court decisions in 2010 made it possible for individuals, corporations and labor unions to give unlimited contributions to political organizations (super PACs) and certain types of nonprofits, which can then spend the money to elect or defeat candidates. The groups are prohibited from coordinating their activities with candidates.

The top super PAC spender was “Restore Our Future” — the ambiguously named group set up to help Romney. The group spent $4.1 million, all of it in opposition to Gingrich, who enjoyed a brief lead in Iowa polls last month before the shellacking.

Restore Our Future has moved on from Iowa and spent $622,000 in Florida, a likely harbinger of more to come in that high stakes contest. Almost $100,000 has been spent by the pro-Romney group in South Carolina, whose primary is January 21.

Restore Our Future reported raising over $12 million in the first six months of 2011; it is apparently the best-funded of the new breed of PACs, and has received a few seven-figure donations. Not so well known is a second organization that hopped on the Romney bandwagon, Citizens for a Working America Inc.

The group spent $475,000 on a Christmas Eve ad buy praising the candidate.

The group initially supported Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota but changed course shortly before the big ad buy.

The Center traced an address in an FEC filing for Citizens Inc. to the office of JSN Associates in Dayton, Ohio. The “JSN” is James S. Nathanson, who said Monday the group is “very definitely pro-Romney.” He would not say who the group’s donors are.

A previous incarnation of the group met with some controversy when it accepted a single $255,000 donation in 2010 from a Virginia consulting group called “New Models.” Questions were raised as to whether the group was being used as a pass-through for unnamed donors.

A super PAC supporting Perry, “Make Us Great Again,” spent all of its $3.7 million on ads backing the Texas governor.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman enjoyed the support of “Our Destiny PAC” which spent $1.9 million for ads in New Hampshire, where he opted to compete first rather than Iowa.

Two groups supporting Gingrich ponied up just over $900,000 for TV spots. The bulk of the pro-Gingrich spending was done by “Winning Our Future,” a super PAC that was just started last month.

A surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, enjoyed $631,000 in supportive spending by outside groups.

“Priorities USA,” a super PAC supporting President Obama, was also active, spending a little more than $306,000 on advertising opposing Romney.

And “Endorse Liberty Inc.,” a new super PAC embracing Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, spent more than $448,000, most of that on Internet advertising. It also listed one of the more unusual expenditures of the 2012 campaign — $2,000 on “costumes and makeup.”

Peter Stone contributed to this report.

Category: Elections