KBarker1

As a reporter, I'm most interested in the idea of these dark money groups, the social welfare nonprofits that can spend millions on electing people without disclosing their donors. Sure, super PACs are important, and the millions of dollars being given are certainly worth noting, but at least with super PACs, we know (in general) who's giving that money. Anonymous money raises different questions--questions I think we should be talking about. Maybe everyone's fine with anonymous money coming into the system. But it seems as if we've gotten to this place almost accidentally, without most people realizing it and without even having a discussion about it.

Good question. In every campaign, both sides try to do end runs around campaign finance restrictions, to run through loopholes, to try to raise big money without reporting their donors, at least until after the elections. After McCain Feingold, it was 527s in 2004, and then 527s and 501c4s in 2008, and now, post-Citizens United and Speech Now (fun reading for you court buffs), we're in a world where it seems like anything goes. Super PACs! 501c4s! There are different ways to spend money on politics, and also to hide donors.

So is it different than before? The level of money is much higher now. The ability of 501c4s to spend seems much greater.

As far as how super PACs differ from the other groups--501c4s and 527s--it's (of course) complicated. Super PACs are actually 527s under the IRS rules, but as registered political committees with the FEC, they have to report their donors on a regular basis.

The 501c4s (and 501c6s, the trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce) aren't considered political committees by the FEC. As of now, they don't have to report their donors for the direct independent expenditure ads to the FEC. They are supposed to report their major donors for electioneering communications--those softer, issue ads, that say things like "Call Candidate X and tell him to stop being a jerk." But they're trying to get around that new rule.

Let me know if all that didn't make sense.

Wow, I heart you, you want to read a book about campaign finance! Honestly, the field has been changing so much, there's not necessarily a book that can bring you completely up to speed. Or, if there is, I haven't been reading it because I've been too busy working. I'd suggest you take a look at this reading guide we put together: http://www.propublica.org/article/from-citizens-united-to-super-pacs-a-campaign-finance-reading-guide

Also, anything Jane Mayer at The New Yorker does on this topic is usually edifying and interesting. I'm hoping she's doing a book.

OK. The IRS has different categories for nonprofits. A charity, for instance, is a 501c3--not allowed to do much politicking, if any. A social-welfare nonprofit is a 501c4--primarily supposed to be serving a social welfare purpose, but allowed to do lobbying and some campaign intervention. A union is a 501c5, and a trade association like the Chamber of Commerce is a 501c6. Both categories allowed to do a certain level of campaign intervention. A 527 is the IRS definition of a political committee, which has to report its donors to the IRS. The IRS makes those donors public. The other nonprofits have to report their donors to the IRS. But the IRS doesn't make those donors public.

Then, to the FEC. The FEC requires registered political action committees to report their donors on a regular basis. But outside spending groups that can prove their main purpose isn't politics don't necessarily have to report their donors for ads. (One change this year: A new court ruling and FEC interpretation says major donors to soft issue ads right before the election must be named. But these outside spending groups are already figuring out ways to get around that requirement.)

So: A super PAC with the FEC is a 527 with the IRS. A 501c4 with the IRS is simply an outside spending group with the FEC.

And yes, the long and hairy of it is, there's a lot more money moving in, and in the cases of these dark money 501c4 and 501c6 groups, there's no way of finding out where that money is coming from, unless the group is forthcoming. It is possible to find out how it's being spent--as long as the group reports it to the FEC.

Does that help?

I think that by talking about this issue and by pounding officials on this issue, perhaps it's possible to make a change. But as of now, unlikely. The Supreme Court has opened the door to unlimited fundraising and spending by outside groups, and that's the world we now live in, like it or not. So that raises the question: Should we know who's giving that money? That's an issue I think people can push on. The Supreme Court, even in Citizens United, was adamant that disclosure was paramount, and that disclosure would help voters make decisions. Well, we have a system now with unlimited money, but with very little disclosure.