OpenSecretsDC

One of the main differences is that the duck-sized contributions won't necessarily be buying access. If everyone is giving more or less the same contribution to the candidate of their choice (ducks come in slightly different sizes), they aren't much more likely than anyone else to get the ear of the candidate once their in office. The person giving the horse sized contribution is, which is why you see presidential candidates going to talk privately with wealthy donors before (and after) they become candidates.

(RM)

All of us should care who's funding electoral politics, at any level of government, because those who foot the bill are generally not doing so out of a sense of altruism, but very often want something in return -- a bill passed, a policy or regulation overturned, a political appointment, etc. This means that their ability to wield influence may skew politics or policy away from the broad public interest and toward their more narrow or parochial interest -- and that is ultimately detrimental to you and me. Alternatively, we may be willing to pick our battles and cede some issues to those most affected by regulations or laws ultimately implemented. But we have to pay attention in order to pick those battles. (SK)

Sorry for the wait. It is the weekend, and the AMA has been long over, but I felt this deserved an answer.

We follow any and all organizations and individuals regardless of ideology. We are, first and foremost, a data organization -- though we do significant research and reporting as well. We process, standardize and make available to the public large amounts of lobbying, campaign finance, and personal financial disclose data so that people of all political stripes can make informed decisions.

Our research in general, and our nonprofit "dark money" research in particular very often focuses on groups on the left. We have, for example, written extensively about the largest and most questionable dark money group on the left:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/08/patriot-majority/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/05/shape-shifting-by-liberal-dark-mone/

We've mocked not only the questionable social welfare purpose of David Brock's opposition research nonprofit, American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, but also the fact that a Democratic group was so untransparent in how they provided documents to us:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/this-2143-page-irs-document-could-be-yours-for-just-428-60-plus-shipping/

With our friends at the Sunlight Foundation, we meticulously dug into the top donors of the Obama shadow campaign organization, Organizing for Action:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/ofa-fundraising-down-but-still-attracting-new-donors/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/06/organizing-for-action-whos-giving-to-obama-linked-nonprofit/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/10/organizing-for-action-chalks-up-77/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/07/organizing-for-action/

And we've written about the nondisclosing 501(c)(4) that formed to support Obama, Priorities USA:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/priorities-usa-relied-on-handful-of-donors/ http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/obamas-shadow-money-allie/

This is the tip of the iceberg. I would encourage you to poke around on the site, and see what you can find. For example, if you want to find George Soros's 2014 contributions to outside groups, have a look here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000000364&type=I&super=N&name=Soros%2C+George

Or Bloomberg: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000003704&type=I&super=N&name=Bloomberg%2C+Michael+R.

Or Steyer: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/donor_detail.php?cycle=2014&id=U0000003652&type=I&super=N&name=Steyer%2C+Thomas

If you want to want to see how 501(c)(5) union spending compares to the spending from 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations over time, check here: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php

Also, dig through our blog. We put out several reports a week -- and several long major reports a quarter -- on a wide array of subject covering organizations across the political spectrum.

The Kochs, as we've mentioned in other responses, are a particular focus because their network of 501(c)(4) organizations is larger and more complex than any other in existence. If you know of another that engages in direct campaign activities, on the left or the right, that we aren't giving significant coverage to, by all means get in touch with us.

(RM)

As an organization, we don't advocate for any large-scale reforms, but we do make comments to government agencies advocating for changes to procedures that could make important data more accessible to the public.

A few simple things -- which actually have a chance of happening -- is for the IRS and the FEC to better manage the data they oversee. On the IRS side, they could provide the same kind of searchable databases they do for 527 political committees. It's actually quite amazing that the IRS still provides routine filings in paper form or on monthly DVDs in the mail (We had a good time making fun of this fact last year: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/07/this-2143-page-irs-document-could-be-yours-for-just-428-60-plus-shipping/ )

. Such a database would include annual 990 tax returns and machine-readable data for all organizations that e-file. On the FEC side, they could require filers to say what kind of organization they are -- 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), etc. -- and include their IRS Employer Identification Number (EIN) on their FEC filings. These kinds of simple changes -- absent larger reforms that don’t seem possible in the current climate -- would allow the public, the press and watchdogs to better monitor the activities of these organizations, although we still wouldn’t know the identities of the contributors to the political nonprofits.

For more, here are our comments to the IRS last year: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/02/crp-to-irs-new-rules-need-new-data/

(RM)

Devils advocate: they aren't forcing people to vote for who they support.

My stance stems from believing that the American people are capable of researching the candidates and making an informed decision, but only if they have access to accurate information about the messages they are absorbing. That requires knowing who the messenger (or funder of the message) is in order to be able to consider the source and gauge their/its credibility. (SK)