Gavin Aronsen

Reporter

Gavin is a Mother Jones reporter in the DC bureau.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @garonsen

Gavin is an Iowa native, and covered the 2008 first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses for the Ames Tribune. He has also contributed to the Agence France-Presse, Daily Beast, Iowa Independent, Manhattan Media, and Village Voice.

The Biggest Little GOP Donors in Texas

Everything's bigger in the Lone Star state—campaign contributions included.

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Mon Jan. 30, 2012 4:00 AM PST

Bob Perry, age 79
Est. net worth: $650 million
Source of wealth: Perry Homes, one of America's top homebuilders
2012 favorite: Has given $3.2 million to Rick Perry's gubernatorial bids, but sat on Mitt Romney's 2008 "Texas Leadership Team" and poured $500K into a Romney 2012 super-PAC
Dark-money potential: Extreme. In the 2004 cycle, he gave $4.45 million to Swift Boat Vets for Truth and $3 million to the Bush-aligned Progress for America Voter Fund. In 2006, he spent $5 million creating a free-market 527 group and gave $9.5 million to the Karl Rove-associated super-PAC American Crossroads.
Grab bag: He bankrolled every member of the Texas Supreme Court, which held up a couple's lawsuit claiming their Perry-built home was defective.

Harlan Crow, age 62
Est. net worth: Hundreds of millions
Source of wealth: Real estate; Crow Holdings
2012 favorite: Has given $180K to Rick Perry's gubernatorial campaigns since 2004—plus millions to state and national conservative causes. But Crow Holdings bundled $25K for long-shot GOP contender Jon Huntsman.
Dark-money potential: High. Crow, who sat on the founders' committee of the anti-tax think tank Club for Growth, gave $125K to the Swift Boat Vets circa 2004. He's also given nearly $900K to Texans for Lawsuit Reform and donated $500K to help the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas start a tea party group.
Grab bag: The gardens at Crow's $24 million estate feature statues of notorious historical figures like Mao, Stalin, and Gavrilo Princip—the assassin who sparked World War I.

Harold Simmons, age 80
Est. net worth: $9.3 billion
Source of wealth: Owns Contran Corporation (metals, chemicals, and waste management). Dubbed the "king of Superfund sites," he's lobbied Texas legislators to let him bury low-level radioactive waste despite water contamination risks.
2012 favorite: Has given $1.8 million to Rick Perry's gubernatorial bids since 2001; gave $100K to Perry's presidential PAC in 2011
Dark-money potential: Extreme. Besides doling out more than $1.9 million to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Simmons has given $2 million to American Crossroads and $3 million to the Swift Boat Vets.
Grab bag: He was once sued by his family for allegedly involving them in illegal campaign donations.

Robert Rowling, age 57
Est. net worth: $4.7 billion
Source of wealth: Owns TRT Holdings (oil exploration, fitness, and Mexican dollar stores)
2012 favorite: Has donated to Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry
Dark-money potential: Extreme. The former Bush Pioneer prefers "a pretty low profile" and has donated $5.3 million to American Crossroads. He's also given generously to state and national gopers—including $295K to the National Republican Senatorial Committee since 2007—and $362K to Rick Perry's gubernatorial bids.
Grab bag: In 2010, San Francisco franchises of Rowling's Gold's Gym denounced his donations to American Crossroads, which supports anti-gay candidates.

Sam Wyly, age 77
Est. net worth: $1 billion
Source of wealth: Tech investments starting with University Computing Company in 1963; also cofounded Maverick Capital, an $11 billion hedge fund
2012 favorite: He and his late brother, Charles, have given Rick Perry at least $440K since 2000. So far, nada to 2012 candidates.
Dark-money potential: Moderate. The brothers and their spouses have leaned mainstream GOP, giving $2.5 million to Republicans for Clean Air, $1.3 million to the RNC, $380K-plus to congressional GOP PACs, and $75K to the Republican Governors Association over 20 years. Also gave five figures to at least six Texas members of Congress.
Grab bag: Sam's fighting 2010 charges that he and Charles conducted insider trading and socked away more than $500 million in illegal offshore accounts.

One more biggie: "Black Gold for the GOP" profiles Trevor Rees-Jones, a top Texas GOP donor whom you've probably never heard of. Also check out, "How to Win Friends and Influence Elections," which charts the rarified social/charitable orbit shared by Dallas' top GOP power players.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Chart: How Texans Win Friends and Influence Elections

From charities to GOP dark-ops groups, these Texas megadonors share the same rarified circles.

—By Gavin Aronsen

| January/February 2012 Issue

For Dallas billionaire gas-driller Trevor Rees-Jones and his wife, Janice, philanthropy helped provide entry into an orbit of fabulously wealthy and politically connected Texans, where alliances are forged among givers to the same cherished causes. While riding in a golf cart with ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who serves as president of the Boy Scouts of America, Rees-Jones agreed to donate $25 million to the Scouts' Dallas chapter. He also gave $25 million to the Perot Museum of Nature and Science and another $25 million to Parkland Memorial Hospital, a favorite of old-line GOP money men like Harold Simmons—a major backer of Gov. Rick Perry, Rove's American Crossroads, and the John Kerry-vanquishing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. These details come from Josh Harkinson's "Black Gold for the GOP," which explains how Rees-Jones has emerged recently as one of the Republicans' top money men. The chart below details the ties between Rees-Jones and other conservative Texas socialites, charities, pols, and political-attack PACs. Also be sure and check out our roundup of "The Biggest Little GOP Donors in Texas."

Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Sun Jan. 29, 2012 11:03 AM PST

Occupy Oakland protesters flee as police attempt to kettle them ahead of Saturday's mass arrest.

On Saturday, Occupy Oakland re-entered the national spotlight during a day-long effort to take over an empty building and transform it into a social center. Oakland police thwarted the efforts, arresting more than 400 people in the process, primarily during a mass nighttime arrest outside a downtown YMCA. That number included at least six journalists, myself included, in direct violation of OPD media relations policy that states, "Even after a dispersal order has been given, clearly identified media shall be permitted to carry out their professional duties in any area where arrests are being made unless their presence would unduly interfere with the enforcement action."*

After an unsuccessful afternoon effort to occupy a former convention center, the more than 1,000 protesters elected to return to the site of their former encampment outside City Hall. On the way, they clashed with officers, advancing down a street with makeshift shields of corrugated metal and throwing objects at a police line. Officers responded with smoke grenades, tear gas, and bean bag projectiles. After protesters regrouped, they marched through downtown as police pursued and eventually contained a few hundred of them in an enclosed space outside a YMCA. Some entered the gym and were arrested inside.

As soon as it became clear that I would be kettled with the protesters, I displayed my press credentials to a line of officers and asked where to stand to avoid arrest. In past protests, the technique always proved successful. But this time, no officer said a word. One pointed back in the direction of the protesters, refusing to let me leave. Another issued a notice that everyone in the area was under arrest.

I wound up in a back corner of the space between the YMCA and a neighboring building, where I met Vivian Ho of the San Francisco Chronicle and Kristin Hanes of KGO Radio. After it became clear that we would probably have to wait for hours there as police arrested hundreds of people packed tightly in front of us, we maneuvered our way to the front of the kettle to display our press credentials once more.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Charts: Wall Street Blows All Other Political Donors Away

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Thu Jan. 26, 2012 2:24 PM PST

Wall Street's outsized political influence is no secret, but some new data shows just how much it's ballooned. According to the Sunlight Foundation, campaign spending by elite donors from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector has jumped 700 percent in the past two decades, far outpacing individual donations from all other industries.

Sunlight found that donors who give more than $10,000 to candidates, parties, and outside spending groups—the "political one percent of the one percent"—account for 25 percent of total individual contributions. Among those elite donors who work in the so-called FIRE sector, contributions have risen from $15.4 million in 1990 to $178.2 million in 2010. According to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, the finance part of the FIRE trio (i.e., Wall Street) accounts for around two-thirds of the sector's donations. (Not surprisingly, a significant chunk of 2012's biggest super-PAC donors are current or former Wall Street execs.)

During the 2008 election cycle, FIRE's top donors gave $328 million, outspending their closest competitors—lawyers—by more than $200 million.

After a brief Democratic fundraising advantage before Barack Obama's election, Republicans are once again reaping the majority of the sector's money.

Take a look at all the charts and findings here.

This post has been updated to more accurately explain the difference between the FIRE sector and Wall Street.

Candidates Hate Super-PACs (But Love Them, Too)

—By Gavin Aronsen

| Tue Jan. 24, 2012 4:00 AM PST

If you were a candidate, you'd have plenty of reasons to hate super-PACs: They can raise unlimited money to attack you, all while keeping a safe distance from your opponents so that they don't look like mudslingers. On the other hand, you'd also have plenty of reasons to love super-PACs: They can raise unlimited money to attack your opponents, all while keeping a safe distance from you so that you don't look like a mudslinger.

Which explains why Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich can't seem to make up their minds on whether they want to embrace or erase super-PACs. Where they and the other candidates stand on the 2012 election's big-money groups:

Mitt Romney
Super-PAC relationship status: It's complicated
Last Wednesday, Romney told a South Carolina audience, "It's not that I don't support super-PACs. We raise money for super-PACs. We encourage super-PACs. Each candidate has done that." But during a debate just the day before, he took the opposite view: "We all would like to have super-PACs disappear, to tell you the truth…I think this has to change." And last December, Romney called super-PACs a "disaster," saying that campaigns should be able to raise unlimited funds instead: "We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super-PACs." Yet Romney, whose affiliated super-PACs have poured $11.9 million into the race, has also said that the Supreme Court made "the correct decision" in Citizens United, the decision that paved the way for super-PACs.

Newt Gingrich
Super-PAC relationship status: It's complicated
During a New Hampshire debate in January, Gingrich attacked super-PACs as "totally irresponsible, totally secret, and I think it's a problem." At a campaign stop in the state, Gingrich echoed Romney's call for unlimited campaign fundraising, saying that he'd like to "allow people to donate unlimited after-tax money as long as they report it every single night on the internet." That was before casino mogul Sheldon Adelson dropped $5 million on Winning Our Future, the pro-Gingrich super-PAC that's been going after Romney. Gingrich has called Citizens United "a great victory for free speech." Super-PACs supporting him have spent more than $4 million.

Rick Santorum
Super-PAC relationship status: It's complicated
Santorum recently said that a constitutional amendment to roll back Citizens United "would be against the right to petition your government." Like his rivals, he's criticized the super-PACs attacking him; he described the rhetoric of one pro-Romney group as "just yuck." Yet Santorum may owe his campaign's continued existence to the super-PAC backing him. Billionaire Foster Friess, one of the 2012 election's biggest donors, is a key funder of the pro-Santorum super-PAC the Red White and Blue Fund. (Friess told NPR that he'd prefer a system in which "you or I could give whatever amounts we want directly to the campaign.") So far, pro-Santorum super-PACs have spent $2 million.

Ron Paul
Super-PAC relationship status: Friends
In his book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul criticizes foes of Citizens United: "Those who attack the court's decision say that corporations and unions have no rights of free speech, following the flawed belief that government can regulate commercial speech in advertising." A page later, Paul also decries limits on campaign fundraising, even though "the amount of money being spent on elections is obscene." Pro-Paul super-PACs have spent about $360,000.

Barack Obama
Super-PAC relationship status: Former enemies*
A week after Citizens United was decided in 2010, President Obama criticized the ruling in his State of the Union address. "Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama declared, as Justice Samuel Alito appeared to mouth, "Not true, not true." Last July, an Obama spokesman told the Los Angeles Times that "neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super-PACs" (a rule that apparently doesn't apply to his former staffers). Last week, in a Politico article detailing how the pro-Obama super-PAC Priorities USA Action is lagging behind those of his GOP rivals, an Obama campaign representative said, "I don't think the president is just ambivalent about his super-PAC. He's flat-out opposed to it." Priorities USA Action spent about $100,000 attacking Romney in South Carolina.

*Update: Obama has since decided that he and super-PACs are frenemies; his campaign plans to help fundraise for Priorities USA Action.

Buddy Roemer
Super-PAC relationship status: Not friends
The former Louisiana governor still hasn't received any debate invites, but he's keeping his campaign alive to decry the influence of money in politics. He routinely criticizes super-PACs on Twitter and starred in a Stephen Colbert super-PAC ad to poke fun at them. Roemer, who has proposed the "elimination of Super PACs entirely," has no super-PAC supporting him.