Political Action Committee - Keeping Donor Lists Hidden From Voters

Keeping Donor Lists Hidden From Voters

By January 2010, at least 38 states and the federal government required disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or electioneering communications, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation. These disclosures were intended to deter potentially or seemingly corrupting donations.

Yet despite disclosure rules, most voters in the United States still go to the polls not knowing who contributed for various independent ads. Critics of PACs claimed they have exploited a technicality in the filing requirements to postpone disclosure. In federal elections, PACs have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" filing schedule. This means monies may be collected and spent long before the required filing date of a disclosure. Alternately, donors may list an LLC instead of their personal name. One super PAC originally listed a $250,000 donation from an LLC that turned out to have been formed by an individual for that sole purpose.

Many have argued that Super PACs, while meeting the requirements for legal independence, are often not truly independent of the candidates they support. Super PACs are often managed by close associates, former staff, or a candidate's immediate family. This in turn has led the press to determine voter intent to support the efforts of a specific candidate according to which PAC a contribution is made. For example the press referred to a filing by Restore Our Future, Inc, that listed 3 large donations by coworkers of 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as being "Mitt Romney's FEC filing".

An alternate route to fund a PAC has helped some special interest organizations keep the names of its donors secret years after an election. This route involves donating to a 501(c) non profit, which in turn gives to the Super PAC. The PAC only needs to disclose the name of the nonprofit that made the donation, not donors to that non-profit.

One organization, the National Organization for Marriage, operated two non-profit arms that received millions in donations from just a few donors. It in turn funded several different PACs and contested the release of names that gave to the non-profit. One former 2012 Presidential candidate, Fred Karger, maintained that the National Organization for Marriage was set up by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as a front group to funnel anonymous money to candidates that are against the legalization of same-sex marriage. In Washington State in February 2012, the organization vowed to follow through on a commitment to spend $250,000 to help defeat the Republican state senators who voted for a bill to give same-sex couples the right to marry should they seek office again.