Who Needs “Poor People”: Records Show How Wealthy Shape Presidential Race
Groups known as “Super PACs” raised more than $42 million to back Republican U.S. presidential contenders in 2011, according to campaign filings that show how new donation rules are allowing a relatively few wealthy Americans to shape the race.
The reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) late on Tuesday offer a vivid picture of the impact of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited donations to political action committees (PACs), groups that are legally separate from the candidates they support.
The reports showed why the Super PAC supporting Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, called Restore Our Future, has been such a force in the campaign – largely by running attack ads against Newt Gingrich, Romney’s top Republican rival.
Restore Our Future hauled in $30 million in 2011, and had nearly $24 million in the bank at the end of the year.
The group spent a big chunk of that during the past month in Florida, where its ad barrage against Gingrich was widely credited with helping Romney to victory in Tuesday’s primary. Florida was the latest contest in the state-by-state battle to pick a Republican nominee to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 6 election.
The pro-Romney group’s bankroll dwarfed the PACs supporting other Republican contenders, as well as the group that backs Obama. Priorities USA, the pro-Obama group, raised $4.2 million last year and had $1.5 million in the bank on December 31.
The funding disparity between the groups suggests the PAC supporting Romney could help the former Massachusetts governor overcome the Obama campaign’s formidable fund-raising advantage if the two meet in November’s general election. Contributions to candidates’ campaigns are limited to $2,500 per donor.
Obama’s organization continued its dominance in the race for cash among candidates’ campaigns, raising $130 million for the year. That topped the Romney campaign’s $57 million, which led the Republican presidential field.
Tuesday’s filings also revealed the growing warchests that independent Republican groups are building with the presidential and congressional races in mind.
American Crossroads and its affiliated group, Crossroads GPS, raised a total of $51 million in 2011.
“A HUGE EFFECT ON THE RACE”
Super PACs were forged from the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that erased longstanding limits on corporate and union money in federal elections as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
The ruling unleashed a flood of money into a political system coming off the most expensive presidential election in U.S. history in 2008, when candidates spent more than $1 billion. It also opened the door for wealthy individuals to prop up candidates by writing a check.
“Super PACs have fundamentally changed the way campaigns are run, and it’s had a huge effect on the race,” former Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis said. “If you can find one donor who is willing to play in a big way, it can have an unbelievable impact.”
For the first time, the FEC reports revealed many of the wealthy donors behind the Super PACs.
Harold Simmons, a billionaire Dallas banker and chairman of Contran Corp, gave American Crossroads $5 million and Gingrich’s group $500,000. Contran gave another $2 million to the Crossroads group.
Peter Thiel, billionaire co-founder of the payment service PayPal, gave the Super PAC backing Texas congressman Ron Paul $900,000. Foster Freiss, a billionaire investor from Wyoming, founded the Red, White and Blue Fund that backs former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and donated $331,000.
The reports did not include the donations by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who poured a combined $10 million – $5 million each – into the pro-Gingrich group in January, after the period covered in Tuesday’s reports.
One of Adelson’s step-daughters gave Gingrich’s group $500,000 in 2011, and another gave $250,000, the reports showed.
The first check from the Adelsons came as Gingrich headed into a critical showdown with Romney in South Carolina. It helped pay for a movie and ads criticizing Romney’s work as head of the private equity firm Bain Capital – an issue that helped propel Gingrich to a big South Carolina upset victory.
By last weekend, the pro-Gingrich PAC had spent a total of $8.5 million – much of it, it appears, from the Adelson family.
‘SUPER-RICH PEOPLE’
“Super PACs are allowing a relative handful of super-rich people to have a disproportionate and magnified influence on elections,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group dedicated to reducing the influence of money in politics.
Super PACs and other outside groups spent about $42 million on the presidential race through the end of January, according to independent expenditure reports filed with the FEC. Romney’s group has spend more than $17 million, compared with $8.5 million for Gingrich.
The filings also shed light on the scrambling by supporters of former House of Representatives speaker Gingrich in recent weeks.
Gingrich’s allies at Winning our Future raised just $2.1 million in 2011. But like Romney’s Super PAC, it raised and spent millions more in January. Much of that money went toward attack ads in South Carolina and Florida.
The flood of money drowned Gingrich in negative ads in Florida, where Romney’s Super PAC outspent Gingrich’s group by nearly 3-to-1 and aired ads questioning his conservative credentials, record in Congress and temperament as a leader.
Romney won Florida easily on Tuesday, beating Gingrich by about 15 percentage points to take a big step toward winning the Republican nomination.
“If you look at it in the simplest way, the role of the Super PACs has been to prop up candidates who in the past would have been forced out of the race because they ran out of resources,” said Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance specialist at Colby College in Maine.
The pro-Romney Super PAC fired back in Florida with a withering barrage of attacks on Gingrich as a Washington insider who peddled his influence to make $1.6 million from mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Those attacks, and two strong debate performances by Romney, halted Gingrich’s momentum and fueled Romney’s runaway win in Florida on Tuesday.
SHADOWING THE CAMPAIGNS
The only restriction on Super PACs is that they are not allowed to coordinate their actions with the candidates they back. Romney has cited the restriction repeatedly when he has been asked to tell his Super PAC to pull down controversial ads.
In reality, however, most of the Super PACS are run by former staffers for the candidates who know what works for the campaigns without being told.
“I’ve known Newt for 12 years. I can dance with the campaign without coordinating with the campaign,” said Rick Tyler, a longtime Gingrich staff member who now runs the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future group.
“I’m carefully watching what he’s saying in the public record,” he said. “It’s not hard for me to follow.”
Gingrich has been the target of more than $16 million in negative ads, while $5 million has been spent to hammer Romney, the FEC reports said.
The $57 million raised by the Romney campaign led the Republican candidates in the money chase in 2011. Gingrich raised nearly $13 million and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has dropped out of the race, raised nearly $20 million.
By: John Whitesides, Reuters, February 1, 2012
Three Key Questions Raised By Romney’s Tax Revelations
Mitt Romney’s campaign has tried desperately to put a lid back on the can of worms that burst open weeks ago when the one-time GOP presidential front runner declined to release any of his tax returns.
But by actually releasing his 2010 return, and an estimation of his 2011 return, camp Romney has provided reporters with some, but not all, of the answers they’re looking for as they try to paint a complete picture of the finances of one of the wealthiest candidates for President in U.S. history.
Romney’s revelations confirm that his effective tax rates in the past couple years have been as low or lower than those of workers with truly modest means. They also confirm that he’s availed himself of truly complex tax strategies designed to boil his liability down to the lowest level allowed by the country’s heavily rigged, labyrinthine tax code. And we know, too, that these are things Romney didn’t want voters to know — at least not yet.
But they raise a series of new questions that will likely require Romney to disclose several years’ worth of additional tax returns if he wants to answer them satisfactorily. Here are three big ones that touch generally on the theme of Romney’s efforts to reduce his tax burden by taking advantage of areas of the law that simply aren’t available to most people.
How Low Do They REALLY Go
Romney’s effective tax rate was 13.9 percent of his adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2010, and is expected to be slightly higher in 2011. Set aside for now the fact that for a high net worth individual like Romney, AGI often understates what you might call “true” income — meaning these effective tax rates probably overstate Romney’s 2010 and 2011 tax liability. It turns out that in 2009, in the wake of the financial crisis, Romney very likely managed to get his effective tax rate much lower than 13.9 percent. In 2010, Romney carried over $4.9 million in capital losses from 2009. This is a consequence of the tax code’s leniency toward investors who take hits in bad years. But as tax lawyer Ed Kleinbard told reporters during a Tuesday conference call organized by the DNC, “that means he paid no tax on any of his capital gains in 2009, including tax on his carried interest in 2009.” That’s not necessarily because Romney actually lost money in 2009, either. As Kleinbard explained, a common tactic for Americans with capital gains is to “harvest” — by selling off certain investments that lose value investors can count the losses against gains elsewhere in their portfolios. If those losses exceed the gains by more than a certain amount, they roll over into the following tax cycle. Unless Romney had significant sources of non-investment income, that suggests his effective tax rate in 2009 was much lower than 13.9 percent. And remember, he jokes he’s been unemployed for years.
That UBIT Bit
One of camp Romney’s chief claims has been that his offshore investments haven’t been covers for deferring or avoiding U.S. taxation. But as described, here, there is one tax strategy that could have allowed Romney to avoid a big, 35 percent tax on unrelated business income, as it pertains to his massive individual retirement account — if that account is invested in an offshore entity. When asked Tuesday if Romney has ever benefited from this strategy, his trust adviser Brad Malt said, “I don’t know the answer to that — let us get back to you on that.” We haven’t received an answer yet, but we’ll pass it along when we get it.
Swiss Amiss?
Romney’s 2010 tax return reveals a Swiss bank account. “It is listed because I set that account up for diversification in 2003 when I became trustee of the blind trusts,” Malt said. “It is a bank account. Nothing more, nothing less. An ordinary bank account. It earns some income which is fully reported on the form 1040. In the 2010 tax return, you’ll see approximately $1,700 in interest earned by this account, which is reported. The tax is fully paid just as if this were a U.S. bank account. Nothing more complicated than that. By the way, I did close this account in early 2010. It no longer exists.”
Some reports suggest that the account was closed for political reasons, but Malt said “I regularly review Governor Romney’s investments just in connection with my periodic reviews, I decided that this account wasn’t serving any particular purpose….Again, taxes were all fully paid etc. But it just wasn’t worth it. And I closed the account.” Tax experts have noted to TPM in recent days that U.S. law changed shortly before then, to make it harder for U.S. persons to avail themselves of tax havens. Shortly thereafter the IRS gave people secreting their money abroad a time window for compliance. Taking camp Romney at its word, that wasn’t really their concern. Even if the account existed for purposes of diversification that could be politically embarrassing in and of itself, constituting a bet against U.S. currency. But to fully answer the question, we’d need to know if that bank account is declared in the years before the law changed. Camp Romney did not respond to a request for comment on this point Tuesday.
By: Brian Beutler, Talking Points Memo, January 25, 2012
What John Boehner Considers “Almost Un-American”
Over the weekend, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) described President Obama’s State of the Union address, which he had not heard, as “pathetic.” Today, Boehner pushed the rhetorical envelope a little further.
House Speaker John Boehner Tuesday forcefully denounced the Democrats’ campaign theme that they are for the middle class and Republicans are for the wealthy — saying the policies the president is running on are “almost un-American.”
“This is a president who said I’m not going to be a divider, I’m going to be a uniter, and running on the policies of division and envy is — to me it’s almost un-American,” said Boehner.
Even for Boehner, this kind of rhetoric is cheap and inappropriate.
At a certain level, it’s tempting to think the Speaker doesn’t even believe his own nonsense. What is it, exactly, that Boehner finds so offensive about President Obama’s message? The notion of a Democratic president championing the interests of the middle class isn’t exactly unusual, neither is the prospect of asking the very wealthy to pay a little more to help guarantee opportunities for all.
Indeed, there’s nothing in the White House’s agenda that wouldn’t have generated significant support from Democrats and moderate Republicans for the better part of the 20th century. Obama’s economic vision is, at a fundamental level, about as mainstream as you can get.
It makes sense for Boehner to attack this, to the extent that he sees it as his job to reflexively oppose everything the president is for. But officials, especially those in key positions of authority, really ought to avoid words like “un-American.” Just because the House elected an oft-confused Speaker, who lacks a cursory understanding of public policy and history, is no excuse for American leaders questioning other American leaders’ patriotism.
I’m reminded of a recent piece from Tim Dickinson:
The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation’s balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, “sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary — and that’s crazy.”
Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. “Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver,” he demands, “or less?”
The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: “MORE!”
The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Today’s Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan — which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits — is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.
I suppose the follow-up question for Boehner is, was Reagan “almost un-American,” too? Were the lawmakers from both parties who approved tax reform in the mid-80s a bunch of socialist sell-outs?
By: Steve Benen, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, January 24, 2012
What “Not Very Much” Income Is To Mitt Romney
In all things economic, the former Massachusetts governor is a veritable gaffe machine.
Up until now, Mitt Romney has refused to release his tax returns, something that he surely knew would eventually become an issue. And it isn’t too hard to figure out why. When you’re struggling to get past your image as an out-of-touch rich guy, having front-page stories about the millions you’re pulling in isn’t something you’d look forward to. And in Mitt’s case, there are really two problems.
The first is his income, which we can be pretty sure is in the seven figures. And this is despite the fact that he hasn’t actually held a job in years. Unlike people who work for a living, Romney makes money when his money makes him more money. Which leads us to the second problem: the tax rate he pays. Because our tax system treats investment income more favorably than wage income, Romney probably pays the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent on most of his income, as opposed to the 33 percent marginal rate he’d be paying if that money were wages. Which is what Romney was forced to admit yesterday, when he said, “It’s probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.” But here’s where Mitt’s tone-deafness on these kinds of issues comes, once again, to bite him:
The vast majority of the income Mr. Romney reported over 12 months in 2010 and ‘11 was dividends from investments, capital gains on mutual funds and his post-retirement share of profits and investment returns from Bain Capital, the firm he once led. And Mr. Romney also noted that he made hundreds of thousands of dollars from speaking engagements.
“I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away,” Mr. Romney told reporters after an event here. “And then I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.”
Financial disclosure forms that candidates are required to file annually shows that Mr. Romney earned $374,327.62 in speakers’ fees from February of 2010 to February of 2011, at an average of $41,592 per speech.
Oh Mitt, you really are the gift that keeps on giving. A smarter candidate would say, “I’ve been very fortunate to make significant amounts of money from giving speeches.” But Mitt describes $374,327 in speaking fees in one year as “not very much.” If you put that amount into the Wall Street Journal‘s handy calculator, it turns out that if those speaking fees were the only income Mitt had, he’d still be richer than 98 percent of Americans. But those speaking fees, apparently, are “not very much” to him.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that the fact that Romney considers an amount of income that most of us will never dream of earning “not very much” doesn’t mean he’d be a bad president, in and of itself. But like all Republicans, Romney thinks there’s nothing wrong with the fact that money you get for working gets taxed at a higher rate than money you make for selling a stock or having your grandfather die and leave you a few million, and he’d like to make that disparity even more extreme.
Romney now says he’ll probably release his 2011 returns in April. Which guarantees that there will be plenty of time for the Obama campaign to keep talking about it in anticipation of the big event. At the current rate, he should commit about one head-shaking gaffe per week on economic issues between now and then.
By: Paul Waldman, The American Prospect, January 17, 2012
America Is Not A Corporation
“And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.”
That’s how the fictional Gordon Gekko finished his famous “Greed is good” speech in the 1987 film “Wall Street.” In the movie, Gekko got his comeuppance. But in real life, Gekkoism triumphed, and policy based on the notion that greed is good is a major reason why income has grown so much more rapidly for the richest 1 percent than for the middle class.
Today, however, let’s focus on the rest of that sentence, which compares America to a corporation. This, too, is an idea that has been widely accepted. And it’s the main plank of Mitt Romney’s case that he should be president: In effect, he is asserting that what we need to fix our ailing economy is someone who has been successful in business.
In so doing, he has, of course, invited close scrutiny of his business career. And it turns out that there is at least a whiff of Gordon Gekko in his time at Bain Capital, a private equity firm; he was a buyer and seller of businesses, often to the detriment of their employees, rather than someone who ran companies for the long haul. (Also, when will he release his tax returns?) Nor has he helped his credibility by making untenable claims about his role as a “job creator.”
But there’s a deeper problem in the whole notion that what this nation needs is a successful businessman as president: America is not, in fact, a corporation. Making good economic policy isn’t at all like maximizing corporate profits. And businessmen — even great businessmen — do not, in general, have any special insights into what it takes to achieve economic recovery.
Why isn’t a national economy like a corporation? For one thing, there’s no simple bottom line. For another, the economy is vastly more complex than even the largest private company.
Most relevant for our current situation, however, is the point that even giant corporations sell the great bulk of what they produce to other people, not to their own employees — whereas even small countries sell most of what they produce to themselves, and big countries like America are overwhelmingly their own main customers.
Yes, there’s a global economy. But six out of seven American workers are employed in service industries, which are largely insulated from international competition, and even our manufacturers sell much of their production to the domestic market.
And the fact that we mostly sell to ourselves makes an enormous difference when you think about policy.
Consider what happens when a business engages in ruthless cost-cutting. From the point of view of the firm’s owners (though not its workers), the more costs that are cut, the better. Any dollars taken off the cost side of the balance sheet are added to the bottom line.
But the story is very different when a government slashes spending in the face of a depressed economy. Look at Greece, Spain, and Ireland, all of which have adopted harsh austerity policies. In each case, unemployment soared, because cuts in government spending mainly hit domestic producers. And, in each case, the reduction in budget deficits was much less than expected, because tax receipts fell as output and employment collapsed.
Now, to be fair, being a career politician isn’t necessarily a better preparation for managing economic policy than being a businessman. But Mr. Romney is the one claiming that his career makes him especially suited for the presidency. Did I mention that the last businessman to live in the White House was a guy named Herbert Hoover? (Unless you count former President George W. Bush.)
And there’s also the question of whether Mr. Romney understands the difference between running a business and managing an economy.
Like many observers, I was somewhat startled by his latest defense of his record at Bain — namely, that he did the same thing the Obama administration did when it bailed out the auto industry, laying off workers in the process. One might think that Mr. Romney would rather not talk about a highly successful policy that just about everyone in the Republican Party, including him, denounced at the time.
But what really struck me was how Mr. Romney characterized President Obama’s actions: “He did it to try to save the business.” No, he didn’t; he did it to save the industry, and thereby to save jobs that would otherwise have been lost, deepening America’s slump. Does Mr. Romney understand the distinction?
America certainly needs better economic policies than it has right now — and while most of the blame for poor policies belongs to Republicans and their scorched-earth opposition to anything constructive, the president has made some important mistakes. But we’re not going to get better policies if the man sitting in the Oval Office next year sees his job as being that of engineering a leveraged buyout of America Inc.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, January 12, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 