Maybe you know someone—a friend—who keeps hearing about Super PACs, knows he should know more about what they are, where they come from, and what they’re doing, but hasn’t quite kept up? You’re in luck, my friend, your friend: There’s been some solid reporting on the topic of late—from news outlets and other resources—much of it prompted by yesterday’s FEC filing deadline (when Super PACs had to disclose information including how much they’ve raised and from whom through the end of 2011).
Below, a suggested reading list for getting up to speed on this Super PAC thing:
One-Stop Shop: Want to learn, in one eye-pleasing place, “Who’s Financing the Super PACS?” NYtimes.com offers this infographic showing, for the Super PACs supporting this election cycle’s presidential contenders: the major donors, the share of donations of $25,000 or more, the total raised through the end of 2011, and more (including handy links to the original FEC documents and the PACs’ web sites).
Another well-done campaign finance-related infographic from nytimes.com—kudos to Matthew Ericson, Haeyoun Park, Alicia Parlapiano, and Derek Willis. (The accompanying article by Nicholas Confessore, walking readers through, among other things, “how narrow the gap has become between the candidates and the theoretically independent super PACs,” is also well worth a read).
For the Highlights (Lowlights): Want to catch up on the stuff in yesterday’s disclosure reports that everyone is tweeting about? How much did Steven Spielberg give to the Obama-supporting Super PAC? Which Super PAC raised $1 from both Harry Ballsagna and Frumunda Mabalz? (The same Super PAC that raised $500 from California’s Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom, and outraised Sarah Palin’s Super PAC). See “All the Best From Super-PAC Tuesday,” from Mother Jones’s Andy Kroll, Tim Murphy, Tasneem Raja, and Asawin Suebsaeng.
Wait, What About Sheldon Adelson? Aren’t Adelson and his wife, Miriam, big Super PAC-ers? Why didn’t their names show up in yesterday’s FEC filings or the coverage of same? Politico explains in a piece co-reported, with Robin Bravender, by Dave Levinthal, formerly of the Center for Responsive Politics and its opensecrets.org blog, an excellent resource for following the money, including yesterday’s disclosures. (While you’re at Politico, allow reporter Ken Vogel to explain how 2012 is “The Year of the Big Donor.”)
Some Background, Please: Need a historical primer? Don’t know your PAC from your Super PAC—and wouldn’t know a 501(c) if it hit you in the face? See the Sunlight Foundation’s “Nine Things You Need to Know About Super PACs” and “Super PACs, How We Got Here.” Also, their report on yesterday’s filings. (Disclosure: the Sunlight Foundation has supported some of CJR’s past reporting on transparency).
What Now? Election law professor Rick Hasen, at his information-rich electionlawblog, provides “3 Thoughts on Super PACS: What We Now Know (And What We Don’t),” with a focus on what reporters covering this complex topic might be missing and/or misunderstanding.
Seen other good reporting on Super PACs? Please share it in comments.
This is a non-issue. There are two components to the press obsession with 'Super PACs'. One is the old lefty attitude - private money used for political advantage is bad (while public money, such as the pork-barrel swag that dwarfs 'Super PAC' expenditures), well, that's possibly deplorable, but not necessarily corrupting. Even if it is used to trade and buy votes from Senators from, say, Nebraska or Louisiana during a health care debate.
The second component is the press' resentment that amateurs are horning in on its racket. Critical attacks, digging up dirt and broadcasting it, snarkiness - the mainstream press regards these as their own prerogative. Imagine if the Romney campaign had run an ad featuring Gingrich's ex-wife talking about their sex lives. The mainstream press would have plotzed. Not because the subject is out of bounds, but because such coverage is supposed to be the property of the 'news media'. If The New York Times front-pages a thinly sourced story alleging an affair by John McCain with an aide, well, that's 'news. But if a McCain opponent had made the exact same charge in a campaign ad - does anyone doubt that the Times and NPR and the rest would have required a change of underwear?
So we have a situation seldom discussed outside the right-wing media ghetto, in which Big Media judges 'information' by who is transmitting it, rather than by the content itself. Interesting.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 1 Feb 2012 at 04:57 PM