A quick update to Paul’s post on CRP’s invitation to track mystery PACs. The Penguin PAC, one of the 31 political action committees that our friends at the Center for Responsive Politics listed as an “anonymous” leadership PAC, does indeed belong to Rep. Tim Ryan. I called Fraioli & Associates to confirm what their Web site seemed to indicate, that Ryan had a connection to Penguin PAC.

And here’s a few suggestions on tracking these things if searching for the name of the PAC doesn’t turn up anything:

– Find the name of the treasurer and the street address of the Mystery PAC. (CRP provides the names of the treasurers on each PAC page — like this one; the street address can be found on the raw FEC filings, which can be accessed from that same CRP page).
– Google the address, and see what turns up. If the mystery PAC shares a mailing address with a member of Congress, you’ve got a pretty firm lead. Of course, you’ll still have to confirm the information with someone…
– Track down the treasurer. Do this whether or not you find a match for the address, and ask the treasurer whether the PAC is a member’s leadership PAC, and if so, whose. Use Google to find the treasurer, or–even easier–check the FEC filing for the “Statement of Organization” — the form requires the treasurer to provide a phone number. Incidentally, you can also google a phone number the same way you google an address.

Good hunting!

0 Comments

Got some spare time? Want to get involved in a little open source watchdogging project? Our friends at the Center for Responsive Politics are asking users to research a list of "mystery PACs," or leadership political action committees that appear to be affiliated with a member of Congress but do not explicitly say so. Leadership PACs do not have to disclose the identity of an affiliated member of Congress. There's a bill in Congress, HR 347, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), that would end this secretive process. While we wait for this bill to get a hearing in the House you can research these PACs yourself. If you need a little help in getting started, Bill Allison, at the Real Time Investigations blog, writes up a good summary of how he researched one of mystery PACs. And if you're feeling in a good mood and want to contribute your findings to another resource, Congresspedia has a great page on political action committees that lists many of the leadership PACs currently active. Feel free to add your findings to the list. Definitely go and help out CRP uncover the members of Congress behind these mystery PACs.

0 Comments

What a deal. Your husband is a member of Congress. You’re his spouse and you start up a business raising money for his leadership PAC, and collecting a 15% commission on every dollar the PAC raises.

That’s the essential scenario for Congressman John T. Doolittle (R-Calif) and his wife Julie, and the details are spelled out on the front page of today’s Washington Post. The story also dwells on expensive gifts that Doolittle’s  PAC – the Superior California Federal Leadership Fund – spent money on, but I’d like to focus today on that fundraising commission.

You can find an example of the expenditures on the OpenSecrets website here. When I added up the numbers this morning, I found just under $70,000 paid out in the current election cycle alone to “Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc.” of Oakton, Virginia. Sierra Dominion is the name of company run by Doolittle’s wife. As the Post explains:

All told, Julie Doolittle’s firm – run out of the couple’s home in Oakton with no phone listing or Web site and no other known employee – has received commissions totaling $169,146 since its founding in March 2001, according to FEC records and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The article cites a comment from Kenneth Gross, one of the capital’s most prominent money-and-politics lawyers (and former chief counsel at the FEC) that leadership PACs don’t have the same restrictions on “personal use” that regular campaign committees have.

Which makes me wonder, why not?

Fundraising is one of the biggest industries in Washington. More time and effort is spent wringing money out of donors seeking to boost their influence than almost anything else. Political fundraising events are held virtually every day (and night) that Congress is in town. Look at the contribution records of virtually any politician in Washington and you’ll find dozens, if not hundreds, of contributions from every interest group under the sun – all with specific legislative agendas.

The only way that politicians have gotten away with such transparent conflicts of interest is because of the understanding – backed by bribery laws – that none of the money actually winds up in the pockets or bank accounts of the members themselves.

Whatever the fine print of federal election laws governing leadership PACs, Doolittle’s arrangement of paying his wife 15 percent of every dollar the PAC raises is a violation of that hands-off policy. The more his PAC raises, the richer his own household becomes.

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t comment on the legalities of leadership PACs versus campaign committees. I am a citizen, though, and from that perspective this flat out stinks.

0 Comments

• Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker looks into Rep. John Doolittle’s (R-CA) stonewall on his wife’s fundraising arrangement. Doolittle has claimed that the House Ethics Committee okayed his wife’s questionable practice (that has been denounced by the Association of Fundraising Professionals) but refuses to show evidence. Kiel writes, "if Doolittle asked for the committee’s opinion, he would have received it in written form. Unfortunately, the committee keeps such opinions confidential. So it’s not coming out unless Doolittle publishes it. And for some bizarre reason he’s clinging to that exculpatory piece of evidence. It makes you wonder." Let me just cradle my chin with my thumb and index finger and say, "Yes, it does make me wonder."
• Chris Cillizza takes a look at Democratic Leadership PACs at the Washington Post’s The Fix.
• Mark Tapscott continues the outrage fest at the very, very unkosher emergency spending bill. He links to a Heritage Foundation study that shows how out of control pork-barrel spending is getting.
• And finally, Matt Stoller posts at Daily Kos to vent his frustration at Bobby Rush (D-IL) - and to get the many Kossacks to call up Rush’s office - for cosponsoring the Internet give-away bill while receiving funding for his community center from the very phone companies supporting the bill. Stoller says, “Not cool.”

0 Comments