Is it a bird, plane, no, super PAC!

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_19789989
By Josh Richman, Bay Area News Group Posted: 01/21/2012 06:13:59 AM PST

Maddie Briggs, of Occupy Democracy-Pasadena, collects signatures Saturday, January 21, 2012 on Colorado Boulevard at Raymond Avenue in Pasadena for a petition to Congressman Adam Schiff to amend the Supreme Court's decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which loosens the laws for corporate campaign donations, on the second anniversary of the court's decision. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz) Faster than a speeding regulator, more powerful than a traditional campaign - look, up on your television screen: It's a bird, it's a plane, it's ... super PAC! With no regulatory kryptonite to slow it down, the super PAC celebrated its second birthday Saturday. And, my, how it has grown: The U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 sired a phenomenon that's altering 2012's electoral landscape, borne on a wave of often-anonymous cash that's dwarfing candidates' own spending while becoming a punchline for late-night comedians. Yet super PACs aren't new to California. We call them by a less sexy name - "independent expenditure committees." And we've had them for decades. While the Golden State's system of tracking their money and what they're up to hasn't prevented hundreds of millions of dollars from flowing into elections, at least we can see where that money comes from.

"At the very least, we could be doing on the national level what California is doing," said Rick Hasen, a UC Irvine professor whose expertise is election and campaign-finance law. "California has excellent disclosure." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, said she often cites California's Proposition 23 when trying to persuade Congress and the White House to enact reforms. The unsuccessful November 2010 measure, which would have rolled back the state's greenhouse-gas emissions law, was bankrolled mainly by oil companies - a fact most Californians learned because it had to be included in the initiative's ads. "Disclosure is extraordinarily powerful because it puts the average person in the driver's seat," Eshoo said. Voters know "who is involved and what their purpose may be." Or at least they may have a chance of seeing the money tsunami coming. Before 2009, political action committees couldn't take money directly from companies or unions. Instead, they raised money from individuals who worked for the companies or were union members. And they couldn't take more than $5,000 per person per year. But the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that as long as an independent expenditure committee doesn't directly coordinate with or give money to a candidate's campaign, it can take unlimited money directly from companies, unions or anyone else. The super PAC was born. Fast forward to the 2012 GOP presidential contest. In Iowa, a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC spent millions on ads blasting Newt Gingrich after he briefly topped Romney in the polls. Gingrich finished a distant fourth there, but a proGingrich super PAC spent millions trying to return the favor in South Carolina, which held its primary Saturday. And voters won't know who paid for all the ads until months after they've gone to the polls - if ever. In one day, a super PAC, even if backed by a single multi-millionaire, can buy enough TV ads to make a big splash, rendering the time-consuming practice of building a donor network almost obsolete. Some say this will keep second- or even third-tier candidates in the race longer, leading to a bloodier primary battle. The inherent absurdity has made it prime fodder for political satirist Stephen Colbert, who handed his "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" super PAC over to fellow Comedy Central host Jon Stewart last week so that Colbert could campaign in South Carolina while the super PAC bought ads there. Amid the comic interlude, the public's outrage is building. Good-government watchdog Common Cause launched a campaign Tuesday to mobilize voters in every state to urge Congress to amend the Constitution to undo the Citizens United decision. Friday and Saturday, Occupy Democracy-Pasadena held protests in Pasadena to object to the Supreme Court's decision. Protestors held signs deriding the decision that they say equates corporations with people. Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, said it's "a very safe assumption" that much of the 2012 super PAC money will come from California - for decades the ATM of presidential candidates. But only five of 20 super PACs active in the presidential race have reported their donors so far, and those only through June 30 of last year. "Part of the problem is that the primaries have been moved up so early," said Bob Stern, the primary author of California's basic campaign laws and dean of its political watchdogs.

Super PACs won't report contributions from the second half of 2011 until Jan. 31, when the primary battles in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Florida will be over - and Nevada will be just four days away, perhaps with the GOP nomination all but in the bag. "The federal law isn't as bad as everybody thinks it is," Stern said. "It just hasn't kept up with these early primaries." In California, independent expenditure committees involved in state campaigns must disclose any contribution of $5,000 or more within 10 days, or within 24 hours if the election is fewer than 90 days away. "With electronic filing, there should be more and more disclosure," Stern said, yet "Congress has been very slow on that." The Federal Election Commission's electronic filing system works well, he said, but the agency can't change filing requirements without congressional authorization. California also requires that all ads bought for or against a ballot measure include not only the committee's name but also those of its top funders. And a pending Assembly bill would require the same of independent committees buying ads for or against candidates. The ever increasing use of mail ballots by California voters also minimizes the ability of large donors like corporations to influence a race late, said Jeff Monical CQ, South Pasadena campaign consultant with more than three decades of election experience. In especially affluent areas where mail ballots make up nearly half of all voters, such late attacks have limited effect on the race. By the time some of those attacks are launched - often a week to 10 days before the election - better than half the mail ballots have been returned, Monical said. In the 41st Assembly District race, Pasadena City Councilman and candidate Chris Holden has seen no evidence of independent expenditure groups trying to nudge their way into the race. "These campaigns are very early, but I have not seen anything in terms of independent expenditure committees," Holden said. National super PACs now need include only their own names, but Eshoo wants the president to lean on the FEC and Federal Communications Commission to interpret existing law so super PACs must "disclose meaningful information about who's really paying to run ads on our public airwaves." Even so, some donors could remain invisible. Many super PACs are affiliated with nonprofits organized under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue Code, which can take unlimited contributions without ever disclosing the donors. The nonprofits then give money to the super PACs - a scheme critics flatly call money laundering. These nonprofits can take part in elections so long as that's not their primary purpose. But although some of these groups clearly exist mainly for electioneering, the IRS isn't doing much to police them. Eshoo and others want a crackdown on those groups that are "flagrantly violating the tax codes since their purpose is entirely political and not promoting `social welfare' as the law requires." Eshoo has led dozens of House members in urging Obama to issue an executive order so that all companies doing business with the government must disclose their political spending. And she's among five Bay Area co-sponsors of a bill to force all public companies to file quarterly reports of political spending with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in addition to letting shareholders vote annually on such spending. Still, "it's very unlikely that Congress is going to do anything at all," Stern said, given its deep partisan divide and lack of will to either expose or stem the money flow. Hasen, the UC Irvine professor, agreed: "There's nothing happening in Congress these days, but there's especially nothing happening on campaign finance reform."

Staff Writer Brian Charles contributed to this report. jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com Twitter.com/josh_richman

Contribution FAQs Any contribution of $5,000 or more must be reported within 10 days, or within 24 hours if the election is fewer than 90 days away. In ballot measure campaigns, the ads of independent expenditure committees must disclose the names of top donors. Federal law Contributions to Super PACs are reported only every six months. Ads run by the super PACs need only mention their names, not those of donors.