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.

 

February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail