FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Using Shadowy “527 Groups,” Corporations Give Unlimited Dollars Directly to Members of Congress

by Counterpunch Wire Report

Using Shadowy “527 Groups,” Corporations Give Unlimited Dollars Directly to Members of Congress Groups Allow Companies to Influence Legislation, Underscore Need for Reform

CounterPunch Wire Report

Corporations are using shadowy and little-noticed groups to put millions of dollars into the hands of lawmakers – a practice otherwise prohibited by federal campaign law – while seeking legislative favors, Public Citizen has found.

Public Citizen’s analysis of recent telecommunications, tobacco and money-laundering legislation shows that these groups, known as “527 groups,” enable corporations to gain access to lawmakers and shape legislation.

The 527 groups, products of an exemption carved in Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, enable lawmakers to directly amass huge quantities of “soft money” – unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. (Other soft money is given through political parties.) With the 527 soft money, politicians sponsor events that further their own careers, give money to state and local candidates, and pay for “get-out-the-vote” efforts.

A Public Citizen investigation of 25 leading “politician 527 groups” (non-politician groups will be the subject of a forthcoming report) found that it is difficult and sometimes impossible to learn which politicians have 527s, who contributes to them and what the groups spend money on. Although these politician 527s would be banned under pending campaign finance reform legislation, the defective disclosure apparatus will continue to hinder the tracking of soft money to the 527 groups set up by non-politicians, such as the Sierra Club and Republicans for Clean Air, that want to influence elections.

“The politician 527 groups are a nefarious mechanism for legalized bribery,” said Joan Claybrook, Public Citizen president. “They allow corporations to put unlimited amounts of money directly into the pockets of members of Congress. This corporate investment is for one purpose only: to shape the laws that Congress votes on and ultimately approves. They have corrupted our legislative process.”

Among Public Citizen’s findings, entitled Congressional Leaders’ Soft Money Accounts Show Need for Campaign Finance Reform Bills:

Virtually every congressional leader has his or her own 527. At least 61 members of Congress have their own groups, including 19 who created new ones in the past year.

In the one-year period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, the top 25 politician 527s collected more than $15.1 million. This suggests that these top groups would collect approximately $30 million in a two-year election cycle. (More recent reports for all 25 groups are not available although they were due to the IRS on Jan. 31, 2002.)

The majority of contributions to the top 25 groups from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001 came from 27 major industries (including individuals, such as executives, associated with these major industries) that gave at least $100,000.

The top six congressional leader 527s collected 81 percent of their contributions from corporations between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001.

The 527 politician groups remain shadowy due to flaws in the disclosure law and the Internal Revenue Service’s Web-based disclosure system. And 527s often appear to skirt the law by ignoring disclosure requirements and providing vague and misleading information.

In new policy investigations, Public Citizen found that:

Regional Bell telephone companies promoting deregulation of high-speed Internet service poured $277,666 into the 527s of House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Chief Deputy Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) while their favored Tauzin-Dingell bill was considered in 2001. Republican leaders simultaneously maneuvered to advance the bill despite opposition among the House GOP rank and file. (A vote is scheduled Feb. 27.)

The 527 groups of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas) received $40,000 and $50,000 respectively from the Stanford Financial Group between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. During this period, Stanford was fighting anti-money laundering legislation supported by the Clinton administration. Stanford gained access to the Texas Democratic delegation through Frost, and neither Democratic leader protested when key congressional Republicans sank the bill.

“Internet access, money-laundering, tobacco legislation – these are among the issues corporations tried to influence through 527s,” said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch. “These 527 groups are just one more reason that the Senate and President Bush must approve the pending campaign finance reform measure.”

Click here for a copy of Public Citizen’s report.

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

May 23, 2017
John Wight
Manchester Attacks: What Price Hypocrisy?
Patrick Cockburn
A Gathering of Autocrats: Trump Puts US on Sunni Muslim Side of Bitter Sectarian War with Shias
Shamus Cooke
Can Trump Salvage His Presidency in Syria’s War?
Thomas S. Harrington
“Risk”: a Sad Comedown for Laura Poitras
Josh White
Towards the Corbyn Doctrine
Mike Whitney
Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team
Jan Oberg
Trump in Riyadh: an Arab NATO Against Syria and Iran
Susan Babbitt
The Most Dangerous Spy You’ve Never Heard Of: Ana Belén Montes
Rannie Amiri
Al-Awamiya: City of Resistance
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
The European Left and the Greek Tragedy
Laura Leigh
This Land is Your Land, Except If You’re a Wild Horse Advocate
Hervé Kempf
Macron, Old World President
Michael J. Sainato
Devos Takes Out Her Hatchet
L. Ali Khan
I’m a Human and I’m a Cartoon
May 22, 2017
Diana Johnstone
All Power to the Banks! The Winners-Take-All Regime of Emmanuel Macron
Robert Fisk
Hypocrisy and Condescension: Trump’s Speech to the Middle East
John Grant
Jeff Sessions, Jesus Christ and the Return of Reefer Madness
Nozomi Hayase
Trump and the Resurgence of Colonial Racism
Rev. William Alberts
The Normalizing of Authoritarianism in America
Frank Stricker
Getting Full Employment: the Fake Way and the Right Way 
Jamie Davidson
Red Terror: Anti-Corbynism and Double Standards
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, Sweden, and Continuing Battles
Robert Jensen
Beyond Liberal Pieties: the Radical Challenge for Journalism
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Extravagant Saudi Trip Distracts from His Crisis at Home
Angie Beeman
Gig Economy or Odd Jobs: What May Seem Trendy to Privileged City Dwellers and Suburbanites is as Old as Poverty
Colin Todhunter
The Public Or The Agrochemical Industry: Who Does The European Chemicals Agency Serve?
Jerrod A. Laber
Somalia’s Worsening Drought: Blowback From US Policy
Michael J. Sainato
Police Claimed Black Man Who Died in Custody Was Faking It
Clancy Sigal
I’m a Trump Guy, So What?
Gerry Condon
In Defense of Tulsi Gabbard
Weekend Edition
May 19, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Getting Assange: the Untold Story
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Secret Sharer
Charles Pierson
Trump’s First Hundred Days of War Crimes
Paul Street
How Russia Became “Our Adversary” Again
Andrew Levine
Legitimation Crises
Mike Whitney
Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State 
Robert Hunziker
Early-Stage Antarctica Death Rattle Sparks NY Times Journalists Trip
Ken Levy
Why – How – Do They Still Love Trump?
Bruce E. Levine
“Hegemony How-To”: Rethinking Activism and Embracing Power
Robert Fisk
The Real Aim of Trump’s Trip to Saudi Arabia
Christiane Saliba
Slavery Now: Migrant Labor in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia
Chris Gilbert
The Chávez Hypothesis: Vicissitudes of a Strategic Project
Howard Lisnoff
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain
Brian Cloughley
Propaganda Feeds Fear and Loathing
Stephen Cooper
Is Alabama Hiding Evidence It Tortured Two of Its Citizens?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail