Center for Responsive Politics Delivers Citizen Petition Calling for Bundler Disclosure. We didn't expect it to be easy to hand the Mitt Romney campaign a thick stack of paper bearing the signatures of thousands of people asking the candidate to be more transparent. And it wasn't. Every major-party presidential nominee for the last 12 years has disclosed those names -- and Romney himself did so during his 2008 run for the presidency. These are individuals who have a lot to gain if their candidate takes office. In many administrations, including President Barack Obama's, they have been named ambassadors to countries like France and Austria, for example, and their ability to score invitations to the White House or face time with the commander-in-chief far outstrips the average voter's. Obama has been giving out the names of his bundlers since early in the campaign, though his campaign lists the amount each bundler has committed to only in broad ranges.
In Tampa, we printed out the names of those who responded, then asked the campaign where we might deliver them. The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters. By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.
The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. CIR | Revealing injustice for 35 years | Center for Investigative Reporting. Member Location Map | Investigative News Network | INN. Inside the Center for Investigative Reporting. Débat : Obama "perturbé" par "quelque chose"?
Barack Obama n'a pas convaincu? Bob Woodward a un début de réponse. (Reuters) Alors que la presse américaine a critiqué, dans ses éditions de jeudi, la prestation de Barack Obama lors de son débat face à Mitt Romney mercredi soir, l'heure est aux explications. Certaines analyses se veulent pragmatiques. Bob Woodward a un autre point de vue. Le journaliste soupçonne que "quelque chose" s'est passé "dans sa vie présidentielle ou personnelle", évoquant par exemple un problème en lien avec les Affaires étrangères. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists | The World’s Best Cross-Border Investigative Team. CRP In the News. Last Week's Mentions Bloomberg Rove's Super-PAC Reports Raising $5 Million in One MonthPublished on 04/14/2014The super-PAC is scheduled to file its March fundraising report, which will include contributors' names, to the FEC by April 20. American Crossroads and its secret-donor counterpart, Crossroads GPS, spent $176 million -- more than any other outside group -- in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political spending.
Also in News & Analysis. The Center for Public Integrity | Investigative journalism from a nonprofit newsroom. iWatch News by The Center for Public Integrity | Investigation. Impact. Integrity. Super PACs. Super PACs are a new kind of political action committee created in July 2010 following the outcome of a federal court case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.
As of April 17, 2014, 992 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $157,839,777 and total independent expenditures of $36,041,691 in the 2014 cycle.