Andy Kroll

Andy Kroll

Reporter

Andy Kroll is Mother Jones' Dark Money reporter. He is based in the DC bureau. His work has also appeared at the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, Salon, and TomDispatch.com, where he's an associate editor. He can be reached at akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com. He tweets at @AndrewKroll.

Get my RSS |

The Supreme Court Won't Hear "Citizens United on Steroids" Case

| Mon Feb. 25, 2013 9:18 AM PST
The United States Supreme Court.

That whooshing sound you just heard was campaign finance reformers breathing a deep sigh of relief. On Monday morning, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit named Danielczyk v. United States, a challenge to one of the oldest laws in campaign politics: the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

The case stems from donations that two Virginia businessmen, William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi, made to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Danielczyk and Biagi gave to Clinton's campaign under the impression that they would be reimbursed by the private equity firm that employed them. Instead Danielczyk and Biagi were prosecuted by the Department of Justice for violating the century-old ban on corporate contributions. They responded by fighting to dismiss the charges. Their attorneys argued that the Supreme Court's logic in the Citizens United case—that independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of corruption—applied to donations directly to candidates. Thus the ban on corporate donations, they argued, was unconstitutional. In 2011, a federal district court agreed with Danielczyk's lawyers and dismissed the charges, but the case was later reversed on appeal.

When Danielczyk reached the Supreme Court, supporters of tougher campaign finance laws feared that the court might go even further than Citizens United by demolishing the ban on direct corporate donations, one of the last remaining pillars of campaign finance law in US. They had reason to worry: Last week, the high court agreed to the hear the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, another troublesome case in the eyes of the reformers. McCutcheon challenges the overall cap on what donors can give to candidates, parties, and political action committees, currently set at $46,200 to federal candidates and $70,800 to parties and PACs over a two-year election cycle. That limit is nearly 40 years old, dating back to the post-Watergate era, and if it falls, the reformers fear that future challenges to, say, the limit on donating to a candidate (now at $2,600 a year) could fall, too.

The Supreme Court could, sometime down the road, reconsider the corporate donation ban. But for now, the reformers have received a small bit of good news at an otherwise bleak point in the political money wars.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Extreme Makeover: Koch Brothers Edition

| Thu Feb. 21, 2013 9:37 AM PST
charles and david kochCharles (left) and David Koch.

Charles and David Koch—yes, those Koch brothers—are two of the most influential figures in American politics in the last 30 years. The future of their political/policy juggernaut has implications for us all. Which is why you should read Ken Vogel's latest story on the Kochs at Politico, a peek behind the curtain at the big shake-up underway in Kochland. 

The Kochs fared poorly in 2012. Their flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, spent $140 million last year, tens of millions of which went toward ousting President Obama and flipping control of the US Senate back to the GOP. We know how that turned out. AFP did solidify Republican gains at the state level—in Arkansas, AFP helped Republicans take full control of the legislature for the first time since Reconstruction—but for the most part, the Kochs and their allies were left empty-handed in 2012.

And so, as Vogel reports, the Kochs are studying what went wrong and shaking things up to avoid future flops. Out went Tracy Henke, AFP's chief operating officer, as well as more than 100 AFP field organizers. The president of Generation Opportunity, a Koch-backed group targeting young voters, also left post-election. More importantly, the Kochs are choking off the cash flow to certain groups that didn't live up to the hype.

A big question looking over the Koch "reboot," Vogel points out, is what happens to the Kochs' mighty donor network, which reportedly steered some $400 million to GOP and conservative causes during the 2012 cycle:

Maybe the biggest question looming over Koch World, though, is whether it can still count on the support of the dozens of wealthy supporters in its network, who—as much as the brothers' own personal fortunes (estimated at $31 billion each) from their family owned industrial conglomerate Koch Industries—give the Kochs their political muscle.

The 2013 installments of the secretive twice-a-year Koch seminars at which donors often pledge seven-figure contributions have been delayed to allow for completion of the audit, which is being conducted by independent contractors and overseen by Koch operative Marc Short. The results will be presented at a seminar in April—a change from the typical late January or early February winter seminar in Southern California. The summer conference has also been pushed back but is still being planned, POLITICO has learned.

If donors are either not satisfied that Koch World has learned the lessons of 2012 or are anxious that their anonymity is at risk from heightened scrutiny of the Kochs' operation, they might be reluctant to give at the unprecedented level that they did in 2012, when the Kochs aimed to steer as much as $400 million into conservative causes.

"Nobody expected that people were going to continue to give at the level that they were giving leading up to that election and that cycle," said Jeremy Jensen, one of the dozens of field organizers laid off by Americans for Prosperity this year.

"I don't think they're going anywhere," Jensen added of the Kochs and AFP. "No, I think it will only come back bigger. I believe [2012] was a trial run for what things will look like in the future for some really big money plans."

Vogel's article also raises the question of what happens to AFP, the powerful advocacy group started by David Koch. In my own reporting, I've heard about all the grumbling among conservative donors about what AFP did—or didn't do—in 2012. Charles Koch apparently shares their concern: He was overheard at a holiday party questioning AFP's work in the last election cycle.

Could AFP be in for a major overhaul? Could it be broken up into a bunch of state-specific groups? No one knows at this point. But Vogel's story is the best glimpse we have at the inner workings of Kochland. It's worth the read.

Watch Out, GOP: Obama Super-PAC Is Coming for You in 2014

| Wed Feb. 20, 2013 11:41 AM PST
A screenshot of the Priorities USA Action ad "Donnie."

Priorities USA Action, the powerful pro-Obama super-PAC, unloaded $65 million in the 2012 presidential race, battering Republican Mitt Romney with attack ads that depicted him as a profit-chasing, cold-hearted plutocrat with a history of screwing over the middle class. Priorities was the counterexample to the Republican outside groups that spent hundreds of millions with little impact: Its ads were deemed hugely effective, and Priorities played a decisive part in Obama's narrow victory in Ohio last November.

But Priorities isn't shutting down now that Obama is safely ensconced for a second term. Instead, it will raise and spend big money to help the Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential election, a Priorities fundraiser tells Mother Jones. The fundraiser says it is too early to comment on the group's strategy for next year's midterms or the upcoming presidential race, but he confirms that Priorities will remain a fixture in Democratic politics. The super-PAC currently has $3.4 million in the bank.

In Tweets, Axelrod Agrees with Romney on Blowing Up Political Money Limits

| Wed Feb. 20, 2013 11:12 AM PST
david axelrodFormer Obama adviser David Axelrod.

David Axelrod, the long-time adviser to President Barack Obama, turned to Twitter on Wednesday morning to fume about the state of money in politics today. In doing so, Axelrod revealed himself to be of the same mind on how to fix our political system as Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Republican super-attorney Jim Bopp (who brought the Citizens United case), and many movement conservatives.

Here's what Axelrod tweeted:

To be clear, what Axelrod is suggesting is a campaign finance system in which donors rich and not-so-rich can give without limit to the candidates they support. All those unlimited donations, though, would be fully disclosed soon after the donation is made. This is the no-limits-full-disclosure brand of reform, and it is straight out of the Republican/conservative playbook.

Consider this statement made by Mitt Romney in December 2011 on the issue of money in politics:

[W]hat we have right now is unlimited political contributions, but they’re not controlled by the campaigns. They're controlled by unaffiliated or uncoordinated entities, which, in my opinion, is the worst of both worlds. It means that large contributions have a big impact, and it means that the campaign can't control them, so if we're going to have big contributors, wouldn't it be nice to have the campaigns responsible for what those contributors say?

Romney told the Portsmouth Herald editorial board that "the best way" to fix our campaign finance system is "to let people make whatever contributions they want and have it instantly reported and know what conflicts exist so we know where the money is coming from."

Those who favor more regulation of money in politics—banning super-PACs, say, or greater disclosure of dark-money nonprofits—hate this idea. They think it will corrupt the political process, and there's plenty of historical evidence to bolster that claim. Which is why it's surprising to see Axelrod, a dyed-in-the-wool progressive Democrat, essentially endorse the no-limits-full-disclosure approach.

David Donnelly, an advocate for taxpayer-funded public financing of elections and less big money in politics, tweeted back at Axe:

GOP Governor to Karl Rove: Take a Hike

| Tue Feb. 19, 2013 10:53 AM PST
karl roveKarl Rove.

Karl Rove, the Republican political whiz, is still grappling with blowback from the unveiling of his latest venture, the Conservative Victory Fund. A combination super-PAC and dark-money nonprofit, the Fund will spend millions on advertising in contests where Republicans believe they only have a shot at winning the November general election if the right candidate emerges from the GOP primary. In other words, Rove wants to prevent future Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks.

The latest Republican to join the Rove haters is Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who over the weekend said he'd ripped Rove and the Conservative Victory Fund in a recent phone call with the strategist. "I basically told Karl Rove that what he was doing is counter-productive and he needs to stay out of it," Branstad told the Associated Press.

Rove and his new venture have driven a wedge between establishment Republicans and the ascendant conservative wing of the GOP. Matt Kibbe, the president of the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks, recently described the furor over the new Rove super-PAC as "a little bit like gang warfare." One tea party leader, Jenny Beth Martin, told the Hill she considered Rove's new outfit a direct challenge to the tea party, adding that hard-line conservatives like herself are "ready to rise to the challenge."

The 2014 primaries are more than a year away, but already the Conservative Victory Fund is eyeing races in Iowa, Georgia, and West Virginia. But Branstad, the Iowa governor, says Rove and his allies have their strategy all wrong. Branstad favors a more "diplomatic" approach (he declined to say what that entailed—a friendly game of Oujia, perhaps?) to ensuring that Republicans who win primary elections can also win in November. From the AP's story:

But the targeted effort conflicts with a more diplomatic approach favored by Branstad and other mainstream Republicans wary of offending important officeholders and factions. Branstad, who is influential as the five-term governor of a political swing state that hosts the first nominating contest of each presidential campaign, was especially inflamed by indications the Rove organization would target Iowa arch-conservative Rep. Steve King if he tried to run for the state's open Senate seat in 2014.

There is similar tension about Republican candidates in West Virginia, where the GOP hopes to pick up a seat long held by Democrats, and in Georgia, where Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss' retirement has set off an internal fight between hard-right conservatives and the GOP establishment.

Branstad, in an interview with the Associated Press, said Rove's plan to use fundraising and negative advertising against suspect Republicans was "a mistake."

"If some outside group that has no connection to Iowa attacks somebody from Iowa, that is not smart," Branstad said.

In the weeks after Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin announced his retirement, Branstad has used private breakfasts with King and his House colleague Tom Latham to discuss who would be the strongest contender for seat, which has been held by Democrats for more than 30 years.

The Rove v. Tea Party story, needless to say, has quite a ways to go.

Fri Oct. 29, 2010 2:20 PM PDT
Fri Oct. 29, 2010 9:30 AM PDT
Thu Oct. 28, 2010 8:33 AM PDT
Thu Oct. 28, 2010 7:48 AM PDT
Thu Oct. 28, 2010 6:20 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 27, 2010 8:35 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 26, 2010 12:00 PM PDT
Tue Oct. 26, 2010 7:30 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 26, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Oct. 25, 2010 6:20 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 20, 2010 8:20 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 15, 2010 7:37 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 13, 2010 11:50 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 12, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Oct. 11, 2010 8:20 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 8, 2010 9:55 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 6, 2010 11:01 AM PDT
Wed Oct. 6, 2010 7:55 AM PDT
Mon Oct. 4, 2010 10:28 AM PDT
Thu Sep. 30, 2010 6:51 AM PDT
Thu Sep. 30, 2010 6:06 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 29, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Tue Sep. 28, 2010 9:48 AM PDT
Mon Sep. 27, 2010 12:15 PM PDT
Fri Sep. 24, 2010 7:36 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 24, 2010 6:06 AM PDT
Thu Sep. 23, 2010 7:05 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 22, 2010 3:15 AM PDT
Tue Sep. 21, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Sep. 20, 2010 6:46 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 10, 2010 9:10 AM PDT
Thu Sep. 9, 2010 8:58 AM PDT
Wed Sep. 8, 2010 7:42 AM PDT
Tue Sep. 7, 2010 11:15 AM PDT
Sun Sep. 5, 2010 10:08 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 3, 2010 7:10 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 31, 2010 7:26 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 30, 2010 8:08 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 30, 2010 6:35 AM PDT
Sat Aug. 28, 2010 2:34 PM PDT
Fri Aug. 27, 2010 10:30 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 27, 2010 7:56 AM PDT
Thu Aug. 26, 2010 7:23 AM PDT
Tue Aug. 24, 2010 9:01 PM PDT
Tue Aug. 24, 2010 8:02 PM PDT
Tue Aug. 24, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 23, 2010 3:38 AM PDT
Mon Aug. 23, 2010 3:12 AM PDT