Just over a year ago, The New Yorker published Jane Mayer’s widely-discussed look at the “covert operations” of the “billionaire brothers” Charles and David Koch and their well-funded “war against Obama.” (The current issue of Bloomberg Markets has another look—sixteen reporters’-worth—at, specifically, the Kochs’ business practices.)
This week brings another Mayer-bylined New Yorker piece, this one focused on “conservative multi-millionaire” Art Pope, who, in a post-Citizens United environment, as Mayer tells it, has “taken control” in the battleground “state for sale,” North Carolina. (That’s the Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which helped lift limits on independent election spending by corporations and unions.) Mayer’s piece, blogs election law professor Rick Hasen, is really a “case study on the effects of Citizens United on politics in North Carolina.” And, lest the term “case study” turn you off, Mayer’s piece is also a good read; indeed, Mayer “makes campaign finance stories compelling,” tweeted New York Times money-in-politics investigative reporter Michael Luo, who knows firsthand the challenge this presents.
In pursuit of his goals, Pope, like the Kochs, has created a network combining a family fortune [discount store conglomerate], the resources of a large private company, and family-funded policy organizations. Of the forty million dollars that his network has spent in the past decade, thirty-five million has gone to half a dozen ostensibly nonpartisan policy groups, which he has been instrumental in creating and directing. Pope claims that these organizations are independent of his control, but, on average, the Pope family foundation supplies them with more than eighty-five per cent of their funds. Though these groups are officially defined as philanthropic, almost all parts of the Pope enterprise push the same aggressively pro-business, anti-government message. Because Pope funds the groups through his family foundation, he is able to take tax writeoffs. “I am careful to comply with the law,” Pope says. “And I keep my personal activities separate from my philanthropic, public-policy, grassroots, and independent expenditure efforts.” But, by taking full advantage of recent changes in tax and campaign-finance law, he has created a singular influence machine that, according to critics, blurs the lines between tax-deductible philanthropy and corporate-funded partisan advocacy.
How did Pope’s “network,” his “influence machine,” fare in last year’s North Carolina legislative elections? More Mayer:
Pope’s triumph in 2010 was sweeping. According to an analysis by the Institute for Southern Studies, of the twenty-two legislative races targeted by him, his family, and their organizations, the Republicans won eighteen, placing both chambers of the General Assembly firmly under Republican majorities for the first time since 1870. North Carolina’s Democrats in Congress hung on to power, but those in the state legislature, where Pope had focussed his spending, were routed.
The institute also found that three-quarters of the spending by independent groups in North Carolina’s 2010 state races came from accounts linked to Pope. The total amount that Pope, his family, and groups backed by him spent on the twenty-two races was $2.2 million—not that much, by national standards, but enough to exert crucial influence within the confines of one state.
In other words, targeted outside spending in state races can have real impact.