INDIVISIBLE Lambertville NJ / New Hope PA

Author: Indivisible Lambertville / New Hope

  • Dark Money Impact: Winning PA-01 in 2018

    Contributed by Kierstyn Pietrowski Zolfo.

    The next SpringBoard event will focus on the role of dark money in our political system. While people may have different conceptions of what dark money means, for the purposes of this exploration it refers to any political donations that are made to groups – political action committees (PACs and SuperPACs) and so-called, “social welfare organizations,” also known as 501(c)(4) group, who are allowed to engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities.

    Of particular concern to our area is the part that dark money played in the 2018 election in PA-01 and the re-election of Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. The PA-01 congressional race was among the top 5 most expensive House races in the country for 2018, and while some of that can be attributed to direct spending by Democratic candidate, even more of that came from dark money on the GOP side.

    Many politicians have their own PACs that are affiliated with their name and candidacy. Such groups raise money by holding events with the politicians present and giving speeches about their political goals… but then they step out of the room while the money folks gather up the donations.  One such event was held on Washington Crossing Road in October 2018, with then-House Speaker Paul Ryan present to fundraise for his PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF). The CLF opened their district office in Bucks County in September 2017 to prepare for the 2018 race. By the end of the campaign cycle, the CLF had spent over $4.4 million – that we know of – to support Brian Fitzpatrick.

    While Paul Ryan’s PAC was the largest of the candidate-affiliated groups to pour money into PA-01, it certainly was not the only one spending money in Bucks County. The Great America Committee (VP Mike Pence), Majority Committee (then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy), Eye of the Tiger PAC (then Majority Whip Steve Scalise) and Citizens for Prosperity (Sen. Pat Toomey) were among nearly a dozen groups to spend on this race in 2018.

    Another way that dark money was funnelled into this race was from millionaire backers. Two individuals in particular played outsize roles in bringing dark money into PA-01: Elliott Broidy and Sheldon Adelson.  Both of these men used the intricacies of campaign finance law to pour outside money into our area to help Brian Fitzpatrick, but each did so in different ways.

    Sheldon Adelson concentrated his efforts on giving directly to PACs.  A review of his expenditures during the 2018 cycle show a shocking amount of money changed hands. This is just a sampling of his donations as reported on Open Secrets, some of which found its way here.

    Recipient Date Amount
    Congressional Leadership Fund 05/03/18 $15,000,000
    Congressional Leadership Fund 09/12/18 $10,000,000
    National Republican Congressional Committee 06/30/18 $237,300
    Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) 10/16/18 $125,000

    Adelson also gave directly to Fitzpatrick’s campaign, and a number of smaller donations to many of the politician-affiliated PACs, who in turn gave to Fitzpatrick.

    Elliott Broidy has a name that may be familiar to those of you who closely follow Trump news.  He is the third client of Michael Cohen (the other two being President Trump and Fox News host Sean Hannity). This former Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee paid a Playboy Playmate mistress to have an abortion, has major financial ties to Manafort-aide Rick Gates, and most recently had his house raided by the FBI in an investigation about conspiracy, money laundering, and covert lobbying on behalf of foreign officials.

    Broidy orchestrated the first round of attacks on Democratic candidate Scott Wallace in June 2018.  Wallace was ‘welcomed’ into the general race with over a half million dollars in RJC advertisements smearing Wallace unjustly as an anti-Semite. That set the tone for the race, but since it was done by an outside expenditure group on behalf of Fitzpatrick, instead of from Fitzpatrick himself, the candidate was able to claim plausible deniability from this awfulness. It should also be noted that Broidy donated to many of the same PACs that received funding from Adelson, who in turn spent money in PA-01.

    With PA-01 as one of the most contentious swing districts in the country, and with our location in an expensive media market, we are going to see more and more dark money and outside money coming in to affect our local races. We need to stay on top of this issue, and develop effective messaging strategies to counteract the effect of all this outside money, or else we will be overpowered in future races.

    Call to Action: Mark your calendars for the next Springboard event on Dark Money and be sure to attend! June 3, 2019 – Location TBD

  • Just the Facts: Dark Money

    Contributed by Olga Vanucci.

    What is dark money?  It’s political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown.

    Sources of dark money include:

    501(c)(4):  “social welfare” organizations such as the NRA, Sierra Club, Indivisible

    501(c)(5):  labor unions

    501(c)(6):  business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce

    Shell companies set up as LLCs can collect unlimited money from unreported sources.

    The 501(c)s can collect unlimited donations from unreported donors, though a recent Supreme Court decision is changing that: donations over $200 will have to be reported. On the flip side, they cannot engage solely in politics and can only coordinate on a limited basis with campaigns.

    Super PACs are not dark money in that they have to report their donors. They can collect unlimited money and can be 100% political, but cannot coordinate with political campaigns.

    However, 501(c)s and shell LLCs can donate money, which they collected from unreported donors to Super PACs, turning Super PACs into dark money.

    Candidate committees, political parties, and traditional Political Action Committees (PACs) are not dark money. Their donors must be disclosed, contribution limits apply and organizations are allowed to coordinate their efforts to help elect a candidate.

    Dark money spending in the first year of the 2016 election cycle was 10 times more than it was at the same point in 2012. Dark money spending in 2012 was three times more than it was in 2008, and dark money spending in 2008 was 17 times more than it was in 2004.

    Dark money has been almost entirely spent to favor Republican candidates.  For example, by October 2015, $4.88 million in dark money had already been spent for the 2016 election cycle. The money was spent by six groups – five conservative groups (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $3 million, and Americans for Prosperity, which spent $1.5 million) and one liberal group (Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000).

    Sources:
    https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/supreme-court-lets-stand-a-decision-requiring-dark-money-disclosure/570670/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money

    https://ballotpedia.org/501(c)(4)

  • Did you Know? The Not So Equal Protection Under Pennsylvania Law

    Contributed by Lisa Bergson.

    Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that fails to provide funding for the defense of poor defendants, who comprise over 80% of those accused. Pennsylvania cedes this obligation to the counties, leading to a big disparity – in fact, the largest in the U.S. – of capital sentences from county-to-county. The result is a haphazard and inconsistent patchwork of attorney appointment protocols, literally playing Russian Roulette with defendants’ lives.

    Executing those denied fair and proper representation is tantamount to state-sponsored murder.  In February, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a friend-of-the court brief, asking the state Supreme Court to hold the state’s capital punishment system in violation of the Pennsylvania constitution.

    Support the PA ACLU: “Defending Liberty Where It Began!” https://www.aclupa.org/takeaction/join-or-donate

     

  • Reminder! Pennsylvania Primary is May 21st – VOTE!

    Coming up May 21st, the Pennsylvania primary poses challenges for progressives. With three Bucks County Court of Common Pleas judgeships open among a heavily Republican bench in Bucks County, the stakes are high.  In Pennsylvania, these judgeships, which pay over $100,000 per annum, are elected and serve for ten years. The Common Pleas, aka Civil Court, attends to family and criminal matters, and thus has a major impact on the welfare of our communities. Many of those on the present bench, however have a strong background in business law, but lack experience in Family Court.  

    The Civil Court also can serve as a stepping stone or entry level for judges seeking to move up in the system, which makes it all the more important to create opportunities for those whose values you support.  In addition, we’re seeing higher court decisions play a greater and greater role in either mitigating or furthering the more extreme tendencies of some politicians.

    Right now, Democrats are choosing among six party candidates, including Charissa Liller, Jordan Yaeger, and Jessica VanderKam – who have been endorsed by the local Democratic party – and Dianne McGee, Dawn DiDonato-Burke, and Chris Serpico.

    Compounding the dilemma, the total ten candidates in the race are completely scrambled on both the Democratic and Republican ballots. Indeed, all the candidates have cross-filed on each other’s slates, making this tantamount to a “jungle primary” that could easily confuse voters. With typically only a modest voter turnout and little time to go, there is a vital need to quickly educate the electorate, so the folks who do vote can make informed decisions.

    The chart shows the candidates running for judge for the Bucks Court of Common Pleas. Make sure you vote!

     

     

  • Say This/Not That

    Contributed by Liza Watson.

    “Active listening” is giving someone your full attention as they speak. Listening to someone instead of commandeering talk time or simply waiting for the moment to say your piece matters in many communication contexts, especially in persuasion and negotiation. Respond with a question to learn more, and allow space for the answer to come:

    Scenario:  You are knocking on women voters’ doors to encourage voting for a candidate who has a good record on women’s issues. You ask which women’s issues matter to the voter and the voter responds, “taxes.”

    Say this:  I’d like to hear why you chose taxes as the issue.
    Not this:  Taxes! I asked about women’s issues.
    Not this: Taxes! Doesn’t the tax scam bill rile you up!

    Say this:  [Nothing] – instead of speaking, listen.
    Not this:  But (with intake of breath), Wait you’re wrong, My candidate “gets” it.

    Say this:  I heard you say taxes are a big problem in your budget.  Would you tell me more?
    Not this:  Geez, taxes are bad for me too.
    Not this:  We have to vote the buzzards out.