NEW WEB TOOL ENCOURAGES VOTERS TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ADVOCACY GROUPS’ ELECTION SPENDING

Center for Responsive Politics ^ | 2/10/04 | Center for Responsive Politics

[Elkiejg]

Now you can follow advocacy group spending in the 2004 elections!

An innovative Web-based tool unveiled today by the Center for Responsive Politics allows voters to research advocacy groups spending millions of dollars to influence the 2004 elections and to report the activities of these groups in their communities.

With the 2004 presidential and congressional races in full swing, special interest groups across the political spectrum will be airing ads, mailing flyers and operating phone banks designed to support or oppose the election of a candidate. Inconsistent reporting requirements will make identifying and tracking these groups difficult.

To assist voters in finding out more about the election efforts, agendas and financial backers of these organizations, the Center has created the OpenSecrets Hotline, an interface on the Center’s OpenSecrets.org Web site that invites members of the public to report advocacy group activities aimed at them. The OpenSecrets Hotline invites users to enter information including the type of communication (TV ad, flyer, etc.), the name of the group that sponsored the communication and the candidate or candidates targeted.

“The OpenSecrets Hotline utilizes voters—the targets of election-related communications—as a resource for information on the activities and identities of advocacy groups trying to influence federal elections,” said Larry Noble, the Center’s executive director. “The more voters know about these groups, the more informed they will be when deciding how to vote.”

The Center will review submissions to the OpenSecrets Hotline for accuracy and add them to an online list of the Major Players among advocacy groups. The Major Players section will give voters information they need to research the groups that are conducting advocacy efforts.

The Center has profiled more than 20 Major Players that are among the most active groups in the 2004 election cycle. These groups, organized under sections 527 and 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, have said they will raise and spend six- and seven-figure soft money contributions that the McCain-Feingold law bans the national political parties from collecting.

Several of these groups, including America Coming Together, the Leadership Forum and the Media Fund, have been dubbed “shadow” groups because of their close ties to the Democratic and Republican parties. Relying on the OpenSecrets Hotline and independent research, the Center will regularly update the Major Players profiles with information on their election-related activities, major donors, key personnel and budget.

The Center also has posted contribution and expenditure figures for 527 groups, which must file such information with the Internal Revenue Service. 527 groups, defined by the Internal Revenue Code as “political groups,” include many of the most active advocacy groups in the 2004 election cycle. Figures reflect reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service last week. Financial information including totals raised, totals spent and top contributors will be updated regularly as data is made available by the IRS. A major IRS update of 527 data is expected today.

America Coming Together, one of the most prominent Democratic groups dedicated to defeating President Bush this year, raised $12.5 million in 2003, making it the largest recipient of funds among 527 groups active in federal elections. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ranks second with $7.5 million raised. Third is The Media Fund, another of the major groups that will work to elect the Democratic presidential nominee, with $3 million raised. EMILY’s List ($2.6 million) and Sierra Club ($1.8 million) rank fourth and fifth, respectively.

This project is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that tracks money in politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

[Elkiejg]

I received this announcement via email. I should prove to be a good resource for FR. Looking at the top RAT groups - http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527grps.asp - provides links to the groups. Interesting to read who's in charge. No surprise that Clinton's goons are all playing a major role as good old George Soros.

[not-alone]

Thanks interesting post

[RippleFire]

bump

[risk]

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pro-israel.pro-arab/index.asp

Let's see, scores of millions of dollars vs. a few hundred thousand?
I don't buy these pro-Arab vs. pro-Israel funding numbers for a minute.

[Riley]

Can anybody comment on the Center for Responsive Politics? Straight arrow, trojan horse, left, right, or as non-partisan as the claim to be?

[maica]

Based on listening one CSPAN show by an official at CRP, I heard an academic who thought he was impartial, but all of his assumptions on which he based his research were leftist.

[Riley]

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/index.htm

Look at how they frame the issue.

My impression is that this is a group dominated by liberals who feel that because they believe a given position seems reasonable, that it is an impartial position. In essence, liberals who think that they're centrists. The may have a few 'supermoderate' repubs on staff.

It's a shame. I'd have liked to have seen something like this that actually was impartial. The way that the issue is framed on the linked page makes it clear to me that they're only presenting one side of the story, gussied up to give the superficial impression of idealogical neutrality.

It also makes any other information on the site suspect in my eyes.

[Valin]

ping

[TaxRelief]

bump for fair elections!

[TaxRelief]

Pew Charitable Trusts
1 Commerce Sq.
2005 Market St., Ste. 1700
Philadelphia , PA 19103-7077
Phone: (215) 575-9050
Fax: 215.575.4939
email info@pewtrusts.com
Website: http://www.pewtrusts.com/index.cfm?image=img1

Description: All based on the Sun Oil Company fortune of Joseph Newton Pew, the seven trusts that comprise the Pew Charitable Trusts were each established at separate times:

Pew Memorial Trust (1948)
J. N. Pew, Jr. Charitable Trust (1956)
J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust (1957)
Mabel Pew Myrin Trust (1957)
Medical Trust (1979)
Knollbrook Trust (1965) and
Mary Anderson Trust (1957).

The trusts have their own private bank, the Glenmede Trust Company. The financial data presented represents the combined trusts.

For 2001:
Assets Amount: $4,800,776,253
Expenditures: $212,401,819
Qualifying Distribution: $243,841,247
Total Giving: $187,853,822
Grants Amount: $187,486,697
Loan Amount: $34,000,000 Number of Loans: 4
Matching Gifts Amount: $367,125 NO. OF MATCHING GIFTS: 449

Officers and Board Members:
Rebecca W. Rimel, Pres. and C.E.O.; Susan W. Catherwood; Thomas W. Langfitt, M.D.; Arthur E. Pew III; J. Howard Pew II; J.N. Pew III; Joseph N. Pew IV, M.D.; Mary Catherine Pew, M.D.; R. Anderson Pew; Richard F. Pew; Robert G. Williams
Trustee: The Glenmede Trust Co.
Staff: 154

"Pew-funded projects such as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology already attract the ire of political conservatives; for example, the Capital Research Center in Washington gives Pew a rating of one, or "radical left," on its five-point scale."

In other words, a major voice and power source for the environmental movement.

[TaxRelief]

Does this group look more trustworthy? They also collect info.

http://www.undueinfluence.com/investig.htm

[jackbill]

Several of these groups, including America Coming Together, the Leadership Forum and the Media Fund, have been dubbed ?shadow? groups because of their close ties to the Democratic and Republican parties.

SNIP

America Coming Together, one of the most prominent Democratic groups dedicated to defeating President Bush this year, raised $12.5 million in 2003, making it the largest recipient of funds among 527 groups active in federal elections. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ranks second with $7.5 million raised. Third is The Media Fund, another of the major groups that will work to elect the Democratic presidential nominee, with $3 million raised. EMILY?s List ($2.6 million) and Sierra Club ($1.8 million) rank fourth and fifth, respectively.

This will give you an idea of the ideology behind the Center for Responsive Politics. Does anyone see any relationship between the top five and the Republicans, as claimed in the first parragraph?

[Eastbound]

Bookmarked. BTTT!

[BigSkyFreeper]

Interesting that AFSCME and Soros are the two biggest contributors among the Top 20