• How outside money was poured into governors' races

    By Paul Abowd and Andrea Fuller, The Center for Public Integrity

    Despite outraising its Democratic counterpart by a 2-to-1 margin, the Republican Governors Association won only four of 11 races in the 2012 election, a far cry from the success it enjoyed two years ago.

    The Washington D.C.-based political organization raised almost $100 million, according to recently released Internal Revenue Service data. The group targeted six states it considered winnable, losing five of them. Democrats won seven of the 11 contests, but the GOP managed to pick up one seat in North Carolina, long held by Democrats.

    The top donors to the so-called “527” organization, which can accept unlimited contributions from billionaires, corporations and unions, are familiar Republican Party patrons — No. 1 is Bob Perry, a Texas homebuilder and perennial RGA supporter, who gave $3.25 million. That’s a little more than half of what he gave in 2010.

    Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is No. 2, with $3 million in donations between him and his wife. According to the latest Federal Election Commission reports, Adelson is the top donor to super PACs in 2012, doling out more than $93 million along with his family.

    Conservative billionaire David Koch — who has not made any contributions to super PACs — was the organization’s third-highest donor, writing two checks totaling $2 million. Koch is co-owner of the second-largest privately held company in America, Koch Industries, an energy conglomerate.

    Seven of the RGA’s top 10 donors are corporate executives who gave at least $1 million. Two of them, Paul Singer and Kenneth Griffin, are hedge fund managers.

    Six of the Democratic Governors Association's top donors were unions. The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees topped the DGA donors list, giving about $1.3 million. The Service Employees International Union gave about $1.1 million, while the American Federation of Teachers gave at least $772,000.

    Top corporate donors to the DGA included pharmaceutical giants Pfizer, which gave almost $700,000, and AstraZeneca, which contributed nearly $600,000. The companies also gave comparable sums to the RGA. The DGA also got corporate support from health insurer United Healthcare Services Inc., and AT&T.

    The DGA raised nearly $50 million, the organization's "strongest fundraising year ever," according to spokeswoman Kate Hansen. 

    'Enormous impact on state elections'
    The DGA and RGA have devised national strategies for collecting unlimited funds from unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals, and funneling the money into state races. Both have used networks of state-based PACs to maneuver around various state limits on campaign giving.

    “They’ve had an enormous impact on state elections across the nation,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an election law expert at Stetson Law School. “In many states they were consistently a top spender.”

    The circuitous methods used by both organizations to inject corporate and union cash into state races and mask the identity of its donors have raised legal questions, prompted lawsuits, and tested the capacity of state election boards to enforce limits on outside spending.

    Both organizations have told the Center for Public Integrity that they fully comply with campaign finance laws, and that they report their donors and spending to the IRS.

    The RGA set up a federal super PAC called RGA Right Direction, and fed it with $9.8 million in contributions. The super PAC — another type of organization that can accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations — then made a large contribution to Indiana Republican candidate Mike Pence, and bought ads in tight state races in Montana, Washington, New Hampshire, and West Virginia.

    Super PACs are normally used to spend money on federal campaigns. By passing the funds through the super PAC, which reported its sole donor as the RGA, the association effectively shielded the identities of the donors who paid for ads in the state races.

    In North Carolina, the RGA spent millions of dollars, directly from corporate treasuries to win in a state long led by Democratic governors. The unlimited contributions from dozens of corporations across the country went toward ads supporting Republican candidate Pat McCrory, who won convincingly over Democratic Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton.

    The DGA, too, used a network of state-affiliated PACs, to fund ad campaigns in battleground states like Montana and North Carolina. It was the primary funder of a PAC called North Carolina Citizens for Progress, which purchased ads attacking McCrory.

    While America’s wealthiest corporate executives tend to prefer the RGA, and unions give almost exclusively to the DGA, some donors played both sides this election.

    Agricultural giant Monsanto, credit card company Visa and health insurance company Humana were large donors to both the RGA and DGA — each giving about $100,000 to both groups.

    Despite the Republicans' win-loss record, RGA spokesman Michael Schrimpf called 2012 "a successful year by any standard" with Republicans now in control of governorships in 30 states. Most of those gains, however, came in 2010. The North Carolina win and the failed effort to recall Scott Walker, Wisconsin's Republican governor, in June, were high points for the GOP this year.

    In addition, in five states targeted by the RGA where it lost, the Democrats held advantages unrelated to fundraising. 

    Missouri and West Virginia featured Democratic incumbents. Three other states — Montana, Washington and New Hampshire — had open seats where a Democrat had previously been in power.

    The two organizations will put their fundraising powers to the test again in 2013, when Virginia and New Jersey choose their next governors.

    Michael Beckel contributed to this report.

    The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.  For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org

    More from Open Channel:

     


     

    Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

     

     

  • 'Battle for the soul of Occupy': Activists fear being 'pulled to the right,' becoming Democratic 'pet'

    Occupy Wall Street protesters are planning coast-to-coast demonstrations Tuesday in honor of "May Day" or International Workers' Day. The protesters are calling for a general strike and are encouraging workers to stay home. The Morning Joe panel discusses.

    By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

    As Occupy protesters hit the streets for a nationwide general strike on Tuesday, some in the movement fear the emergence of two new activist outfits made up of "old left" advocacy groups and unions is an attempt to turn them into a "pet" for the Democratic Party and President Obama’s reelection effort.

    The new groups, 99% Power and 99% Spring, include backers such as MoveOn.org, Rebuild The Dream, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, CODEPINK: Women for Peace, and The Ruckus Society. The groups bring money with them – something in short supply for Occupy – but their efforts are being eyed warily by those who helped launch the Occupy movement.

    Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that made the initial call for people to Occupy Wall Street on Sept. 17 of last year, has been running a blog series on their website, "Battle for the Soul of Occupy," in the last few weeks. In it, the publication has decried attempts to "neutralize our insurgency with an insidious campaign of donor money and co-optation."

    "This counter-strategy worked to kill off the Tea Party’s outrage and turn it into a puppet of the Republican Party. Will the same happen with Occupy Wall Street? Will our insurgency turn into the Democrats’ Tea Party pet?" Adbusters wrote in an April 12 post. "Will you allow Occupy to become a project of the old left, the same cabal of old world thinkers who have blunted the possibility of revolution for decades? Will you allow MoveOn, The Nation and Ben & Jerry to put the brakes on our Spring Offensive and turn our struggle into a ‘99% Spring’ reelection campaign for President Obama?"

    Skepticism of electoral politics runs deep in the Occupy movement and it could affect the ability of Democrats to mobilize activists during the 2012 campaign, despite attempts to appropriate the "99 percent" rhetoric. But Todd Gitlin, a former leader of the 1960s group, Students for a Democratic Society, who has just published a book on Occupy, believes the concerns of some in the movement are "outlandish."

    Protesters hit the streets for May Day rallies

    "It was inevitable that there would arise political actors that want those same reforms, although they don’t necessarily share the real-time spirit of the movement. These are the membership organizations, like the unions and MoveOn … who did turn out for the big marches in October and November, and who are numerically very large but were always from the beginning being met with suspicion on the part of the Occupy movement," said Gitlin, a professor of sociology and journalism at Columbia University.

    "This represents actually a misunderstanding on the part of some of the Occupy people who feel weak, so they’re afraid of co-optation because they feel that the co-opters have the power to puncture their balloon," he added.

    Still, the new groups don’t sit well with Charles M. Young, a writer at thiscantbehappening.net and a 1960s-era activist. He attended one of the mid-April training sessions held by The 99% Spring on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, which he said was led by representatives of the Democratic Party and Wall Street lawyers, and where Obama buttons were offered for sale.

    Up host Chris Hayes leads the conversation on civil disobedience in light of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the groups that are emerging to teach protesters non-violent demonstration tactics.

    Young, 61, feared that Occupy could be "pulled to the right" by partnering up with them and felt the effort was part of a bid to keep the "Kucinich Democrats" from leaving.

    "It looks very much like what they call an AstroTurf movement, you know, something from the top down," he said, noting he left the meeting "disillusioned." "I don’t remember anybody saying that there was a need for the 99% Spring before it came out."

    "It does seem to be mostly the Democratic Party trying to keep the left in line for Obama and keeping things obedient, and that’s just not enough given the issues involved," he added.

    In an email statement, Justin Ruben, MoveOn's executive director, said his group has electoral goals, but that his organization has "zero interest in trying to alter [Occupy] in any way."

    "Growing economic inequality and the increasing influence of 1 percent cash in our political system are huge problems, and problems that MoveOn members care deeply about. Our response includes working to engage more activists in the fight for fairness for the 99 percent and to introduce activists to powerful tactics like non-violent direct action. That's what the 99% Spring is about," he said.

    "Regarding elections, yes, there's no question that MoveOn sees elections as profoundly important, and we will be engaged in elections this year -- just as we've engaged in elections since our inception in 1998. But of course we work with lots of allies that don't engage in elections, and we respect that choice," he added.


    Dorian Warren, an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University, said schisms on the left today are similar to those during the civil rights movements. There were "intense fights between the old guard" groups like the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the youth-led Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, he said. In hindsight, the youth-led group played an important role, serving as "the left flank of the movement," he said. "That’s sort of the role Occupy is playing."

    But Occupy should be skeptical and challenge the progressive establishment, he said. "Until September, the strategies of these groups, whether it was ‘inside the Beltway’ game or just traditional interest group politics, that was not working, and so the more radical tactics that Occupy innovated is what shifted the political terrain and they should stay focused on doing that."

    The 99% Spring and 99% Power have given a nod to Occupy for leading the way, though they also said they had been drafting plans to engage in more public protest and focus on corporate accountability before Occupy existed. They had targeted the fall for their campaign, but then Occupy took off, which in turn helped them convince others of the viability of their own strategy, said George Goehl, executive director of National People’s Action.

    Occupy reinvented: '99 percent' protesters target General Electric

    "It opened up some space for some of the things that we’ve been working on for a long time, and it was really just kind of liberating … in terms of what was possible and also in terms of kind of confirming what we thought," he said.

    Goehl said members of Occupy have joined his group’s trainings – or led them – and some consider themselves as part of 99% Power. He said when he was in Des Moines last week at a protest, three of the 12 people arrested were from Occupy.

    "I think what we’re seeing is … a growing number of threads that do speak to the need to be fearless truth tellers around what’s truly going on in this country to both engage in nonviolent direct action and to challenge the dominance of the corporate sector both, you know, in our economy and in our politics," he said. "And I think that, you know, Occupy is a thread of that, 99% Spring is a thread of that, 99% Power … it’s all part of the same thing."

    He said that the notion that any electoral objectives were part of their strategy was "completely false."

    "The organizations that actually started this idea don’t really run big electoral programs. It’s not been that kind of the focus in terms of strategies and tactics," he added.

    In the end, Warren, the politics professor, said he thought there could be "too much focus on who’s co-opting Occupy versus Occupy just doing its work."

    Success during big events like Tuesday’s May Day actions will actually depend on how many people that the unions, MoveOn and other groups turn out, Warren said. "In that sense, Occupy’s fate is linked to these other groups and these others groups’ fates are linked to Occupy."

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

  • Feds: Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee defrauded dozens out of $7M

    By msnbc.com news services

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee defrauded at least 50 candidates, officeholders and political organizations out of $7 million in a scheme that dates back more than a decade, according to a court filing made Tuesday by federal prosecutors.

    The U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento filed the additional charges in federal court, providing the most detailed account to date in a case that has left some Democratic candidates scrambling for campaign cash in an election year.


    Such filings typically are a prelude to a plea, but prosecutors would not confirm such a development or offer any further details.

    Durkee, who heads Durkee & Associates in Burbank, was arrested in September and charged with suspicion of mail fraud after millions of dollars disappeared from the campaign accounts of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, other Democratic members of Congress and several Democratic state lawmakers.

    The filing details a complex shell game in which Durkee shifted campaign money to cover an array of personal and business expenses.

    Disneyland bills
    In one example, $23,000 taken from Feinstein's account was used to help pay American Express credit card charges from the Los Angeles Dodgers, Amazon.com, Disneyland, Trader Joe's and Turners Outdoorsman.

    Other misappropriations from Feinstein's account covered payments for a Long Beach condominium owned by Durkee and to the 401(k) plan for her employees.

    The court filing said Durkee had devised a scheme from January 2000 until she was arrested last September "to defraud clients of Durkee & Associates, and to obtain money from them by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises."

    It said she had signature control over roughly 700 bank accounts, including those used by political campaigns.

    Durkee's attorney, Daniel Nixon, did not return telephone and email messages Tuesday evening.

    Durkee was scheduled to appear in court Friday afternoon at a hearing that had been set before Tuesday's developments.

    Political treasurer Kinde Durkee is accused of stealing money from California campaigns for personal use. Political attorney Bob Bauer joins Chuck to explain the legal issues.

    She has been accused of looting the accounts of dozens of Democratic officeholders, candidates and political organizations. Prosecutors also say Durkee filed false information with the Federal Election Commission and the California Secretary of State, which track campaign contributions and expenditures.

    Feinstein alone estimated that she may have lost $5 million, but there has been no firm accounting of the losses because the money has been so difficult to track.

    The fraud investigation froze the coffers of dozens of Democratic politicians across the state of California during an election year, and left candidates scrambling to raise more money.

    In a separate order filed Monday, the U.S. attorney's office and Durkee agreed to a forfeiture auction of her Burbank home, which it says she owns with her husband, John Forgy. The couple owes $671,000 on the house, as well as $17,471 in state tax liens, according to the filing.

    The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

    More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

    Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

  • Former Giffords aide, wounded in shooting, announces bid for seat

    By NBC's Domenico Montanaro

     

    A former aide to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was himself wounded in last year's mass shooting in Arizona, announced this afternoon that he is running in the special election to replace the congresswoman.

    Ron Barber, 66, Giffords' former district director, who was shot twice in the Tucson rampage, will have the backing of the party in the June 12 special election.

    It has been reported by other outlets that Barber is believed only to be a placeholder, that Barber will run to serve out Giffords' term and does not plan to seek election when the term is up.

    But two party sources tell NBC that Barber very well may, in fact, seek election to a full term, provided he wins the special. It is the party's hope that he does so. Barber is contemplating whether to run in the reshaped second congressional district once redistricting takes effect, which will likely make this Tucson seat even more Democratic than its current swing-seat status.

    Barber, a political novice, may also want to see what toll the campaign takes on him and his family.

    Prior to joining Giffords' office, Barber was the Tucson District Director for the Arizona Division of Developmental Disabilities since 1976.

    Here's the full release:

    Ron Barber Announces Run for Congress in Arizona's 8th District

    (Tucson, AZ) - Today, Southern Arizonan and former Gabrielle Giffords District Director Ron Barber announced his candidacy for Congress in Arizona's 8th Congressional District. Barber pledged to continue Gabrielle Giffords' legacy of working across the aisle to solve problems for the people of Southern Arizona such as protecting veterans and seniors, investing in clean energy to create jobs and securing the border.

    "Our community needs someone who will put politics aside and solve problems for the people of Southern Arizona," Ron Barber said. "My commitment is to be honest with the people of this district and help restore civility to our public life. My first priority won't be the next election - but the next generation. That means balancing the budget the right way by protecting Social Security and Medicare, creating jobs, and securing our border."

    Ron Barber served as District Director for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords from 2007 until she retired.  At Giffords' direction and under Barber's leadership, the district offices focused on solving problems for veterans, military families, seniors, and any resident who experienced difficulty with the federal government. In January 2011, Barber was wounded alongside Giffords. After the shooting, he and his family created the Fund for Civility, Respect and Understanding to help the community heal by supporting survivors of the tragedy, aiding first responders, reducing bullying in schools, and increasing awareness of mental health symptoms.

    Before working for Giffords, he ran the Arizona Division of Developmental Disabilities, where he built one of the top five programs in the nation that helped people with disabilities to get jobs and live successfully in their community.

    Barber and his wife, Nancy, owned and ran a small business for 22 years.  He understands the challenges faced by small businesses and will be an advocate for the changes that will make it easier for them to grow and thrive.

    "My commitment is to work across the aisle, find common ground and restore civility to our politics so we can strengthen middle-class families of Southern Arizona," Barber said. "My life's work hasn't been politics, it's been about getting results and solving problems for people. I've been honored by the outpouring of support for our campaign. While there will never be anyone who can fill Congresswoman Giffords' shoes, I look forward to continuing her legacy of putting problem-solving before politics."

    In announcing his campaign, Barber pledged to focus on balancing the budget the right way, by protecting Social Security and Medicare, creating jobs, keeping our promises to veterans and securing the border.

  • 'Occupy Wall Street' more popular than Tea Party

    By NBC's Mara Schiavocampo and Domenico Montanaro

    NEW YORK -- This Saturday marks one month since Occupy Wall Street protesters set-up camp at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan. Since then the demonstrations have spread to dozens of cities across the country. This weekend, a global day of protests is planned, and organizers say they expect events to be held in more than 800 cities in 71 countries.

    Clearly, the movement appears to be growing. Now we have some new information about how the rest of the country views what’s happening in Zuccotti Park and beyond.

    From an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll released Wednesday:

    • 37% of the country tends to support the movement; 18% oppose; 25% have no opinion. That’s more than those who say they support the Tea Party -- just 26% say they support it, while 64% say they do not.
    • The movement is most popular in the Northeast, where people tend to support it 48%-15%. It is least popular in the South where 30% support, 22% oppose.
    • Perhaps counter-intuitively, the movement has its highest support among the highest income earners, (those making more than $75,000 year): 40% support, 24% oppose. Among the poorest, however, it is also popular (less than 30K year): 35% support, 11% oppose.
    • Among ethnic groups, the protests are popular among African-Americans, 41% support, 7% oppose; among Hispanics 35% support, 15 oppose; among Whites 37% support, 18% oppose.
    • Among political parties, unsurprisingly, the movement is most popular among Democrats (56%-6%), and least popular among Republicans, where a plurality do not support 17%-34%. Independents support 34%-17%.

    Since the demonstrations started there have also been nagging questions about what protesters believe in, and what they want. Early last week New York Magazine conducted an informal survey of 100 protesters at Zuccotti Park to gauge their views on everything from President Obama to capitalism. A few snippets are below.

    What do you think of Obama?

    • I believed in him, and he let me down: 40
    • He’s doing great: 1
    • I never believed in him: 27
    • He’s doing the best he can: 22

    Did you vote in the 2010 midterm elections?

    • Yes: 39
    • No: 55
    • No, but only because I wasn’t 18:

    Rank yourself on the following Scale of Liberalism:

    • Not liberal at all: 6
    • Liberal but fairly mainstream (i.e., Barack Obama): 3
    • Strongly liberal (i.e., Paul Krugman): 12
    • Fed up with Democrats, believe country needs overhaul (i.e., Ralph Nader): 41
    • Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda (i.e., Noam Chomsky): 34

    For more from the field on Occupy Wall Street, check out msnbc.com's Field Notes blog.

    *** UPDATE *** We checked to see how the supporters and opponents of Occupy Wall Street broke down in their approval or disapproval of President Obama.

    Those who tend to support the protesters, said they approved of the president's job 61%-35%.

    Those who tend to oppose the protesters, did not approve of the president's job by an 11%-88%

    Those with no opinion were 42%-49%.

    The margin of error on this question is +/-3.55%.