SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
americans for prosperity
ALEC Leads Charge to Keep Dark Money Donors Secret Nationwide
For years right-wing operatives including ALEC, the State Policy Network (SPN), and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) have been waging an assault against disclosure and transparency laws at the state level.
Jul 14, 2023
Seventeen states have enacted broad anti-disclosure laws since 2018 that will further conceal the influence of dark money in politics based on model language first developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Indiana, Kentucky, and Alabama are the most recent states to pass versions of the so-called “Personal Privacy Protection Act” being championed by ALEC and allied right-wing groups claiming to be defenders of the First Amendment.
Most versions of the bill broadly prohibit state agencies from gathering information about donors to nonprofit organizations, and some go further to shelter nonprofits from political spending disclosure rules and even immunize dark money groups from campaign finance investigations.
For years right-wing operatives including ALEC, the State Policy Network (SPN), and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) have been waging an assault against disclosure and transparency laws. As the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reported, that culminated in a favorable Koch-bankrolled 2021 Supreme Court ruling barring California from collecting the exact same information on major donors required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
IRS regulations require nonprofits to disclose their largest donors. Though the information is not available to the public, it has traditionally been shared with state governments to aid in investigations of fraud.
“ALEC’s anti-disclosure legislation is an open invitation to corruption and is being used to circumvent the most basic disclosure laws.”
Opponents of disclosure rules argue that conservative donors face discrimination and unwanted scrutiny by the federal government. They rely heavily on the 1958 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Alabama—which upheld the Black civil rights organization’s prerogative to refuse to disclose its membership for fear of retribution—to make their case for keeping the identity of donors secret. This comes in the midst of national fear-mongering by Republicans—spearheaded by the House Panel on the Weaponization of the Federal Government—about how social media companies and disinformation researchers are colluding with the federal government to suppress conservative speech.
“What has been going on for a number of years now is that leftist organizations—George Soros-funded organizations and entities—have been working to try to force disclosure of donors to nonprofit organizations,” according to far-right legal operative Cleta Mitchell, current head of the Conservative Partnership Institute’s voter-suppression group, the Elections Integrity Network.
“They want to do that because they want a target list of donors to conservative organizations so that they can intimidate and chill the willingness of conservatives to give money to conservative issue groups,” Mitchell continued, speaking at a recent ALEC gathering.
In 2016, ALEC introduced both its Resolution in Support of Nonprofit Donor Privacy, and later published a Donor Disclosure Legislative Toolkit, in “response to attempts to expand the scope and application of donor disclosure requirements of nonprofit tax-exempt organizations.” The same year, SPN founded People United for Privacy (PUFP)—which later spun off into its own nonprofit—in order to push for anti-disclosure legislation.
A PUFP messaging kit distributed at the SPN 2019 Annual Meeting produced by Heart Mind strategies and obtained by CMD calls nonprofit donor disclosure a “problem” and provides tips on how to spin opposition to it in terms of “privacy,” “free speech,” and personal harassment.
Going Dark in the States
Since 2018, ALEC’s model anti-disclosure legislation has picked up speed in state legislatures. A majority of the bills that have passed have been sponsored by ALEC politicians, with wording lifted directly from ALEC’s anti-disclosure playbook, though many local groups have lobbied in favor of the bills.
PUFP appears to be leading the charge in public advocacy of the Personal Privacy Protection Act (PPPA) bills based on ALEC’s resolution. In recent years, the group and its related foundation have received $1.1 million from SPN and $1.4 million from DonorsTrust, the preferred funding vehicle for Koch network donors.
“While each state’s version of the law varies to fit its particular needs,” PUFP said in a statement on PPPA legislation, “the fundamental principle is always the same: The PPPA prohibits state agencies and officials from demanding or publicly disclosing information about an individual’s support for nonprofit causes.”
Arizona was the first state to pass a version of the PPPA (HB 2153), as CMD reported in 2018. Former State Representative Vince Leach (R-11), who went on to serve four years in the state senate (2019–23), sponsored the bill. He had been a member of ALEC since at least 2020, and in mid January 2021, he participated in an ALEC gathering with the radical right group Turning Point USA, which played a key role in promoting former President Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud.
In 2019, Mississippi became the second state to embrace PPPA legislation. State Representative Jerry R. Turner (R-18), the principal author of HB 1205, first joined ALEC in 2016 and served on its Education and Workforce Development task force. Six of the eight other authors were also ALEC members.
The campaign to curb transparency picked up speed in 2020, when three states—Oklahoma (HB 3613), Utah (SB 171), and West Virginia (SB 16)—all passed similar legislation with primary sponsors who were ALEC members.
In 2021, the trend shifted slightly, with an ALEC sponsor involved in only one of the four states (Tennessee, Arkansas, Iowa, and South Dakota) that passed PPPA legislation. That was in Arkansas, where the bill was sponsored by a current ALEC state chair. In South Dakota, the legislation was a priority of former ALEC member and current Republican Governor Kristi Noem.
In 2021, the New York legislature also passed a limited bill—signed into law by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul—which curbed donor transparency, a move considered by the conservative Philanthropy Roundtable as “an important step in defending the privacy of donors.”
The three states that successfully passed PPPA legislation this year—through SB 59 in Alabama, HB 1212 in Indiana, and SB 62 in Kentucky—built on the four states that succeeded in 2022: Virginia (HB 970), Kansas (HB 2109), Missouri (HB 2400), and New Hampshire (SB 302). This year legislation died in committee in Nebraska (LB 297) and Pennsylvania (SB 831).
Setbacks
In recent years, a number of attempts to pass PPPA legislation have failed, either in state legislatures or due to gubernatorial vetoes.
In 2018, then Governor Rick Snyder (R) vetoed a similar bill (SB 1176) in Michigan that passed in the state legislature, saying: “I believe this legislation is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist in Michigan.” The bill had been sponsored by State Senator Mike Shirkey (R-16), who attended ALEC’s 2020 States and Nation Policy Summit. In vetoing North Carolina’s SB 636 in 2021, Democratic Governor Roy Cooper pointed out that the bill was “unnecessary and may limit transparency with political contributions.”
Louisiana Representative Mark Wright (R-77), the current ALEC state chair, proposed HB 303 in 2020 but it died in committee.
This year one of the first big blowbacks to the model legislation erupted after concerns were raised over its impact on government transparency. Reform legislation has been proposed in Missouri after Republican Governor Mike Parson shut down access to state contracts and cited the recently enacted PPPA as justification for withholding information about a fundraiser held at the governor’s mansion.
ALEC’s and PUFP’s model legislation has morphed over the years as it has enjoyed successes and suffered failures in various state legislatures, according to Aaron McKean, legal counsel for state and local reform at the Campaign Legal Center.
“If you look at how these bills develop, you can see that they start from a poorly conceived and unnecessary model bill and then they become riddled with exceptions, to such an extent that you have to wonder what the real motivations are, what’s really left,” McKean told CMD. “It just goes to show how poorly these bills are drafted.”
“ALEC’s anti-disclosure legislation is an open invitation to corruption and is being used to circumvent the most basic disclosure laws,” said Viki Harrison, Director of Constitutional Convention and Protecting Dissent Programs at Common Cause.
A Bipartisan Mirage
This year’s PPPA legislation in Alabama was the first introduced by a Democratic lawmaker—State Senator Rodger Smitherman (D-18), who also introduced a successful amendment to include lawmakers in existing legislation that exempts judges, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors from needing to release their personal information. The senator’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Indeed, advocacy around anti-disclosure measures has made for some unusual bedfellows. The ACLU regularly argues in favor of such legislation alongside AFP. Proponents of PPPA are quick to argue that anti-disclosure legislation is bipartisan, eager to cite what they call “ideological diversity.”
PUFP had previously led a coalition that opposed the For the People Act (HR 1), the 2021 voting rights bill backed by House Democrats that would have significantly enhanced nonprofit donor transparency.
This week House Republicans introduced an omnibus bill called the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act that they tout as the “most conservative election integrity bill to be seriously considered in the House in over 20 years.” Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has vowed that the Senate will not consider the legislation this session, according to Roll Call.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pay Attention as Koch Network's Big Money Targets Trump
Trump may be up against the level of opposition he has so far only faced from Democrats—but now its coming from the libertarian billionaires.
Jun 17, 2023
Even before the Justice Department announced the federal indictment of former President Trump last week, Koch’s group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and its super PAC, AFP Action (AFPA), had spent $347,022 in May to discredit his presidential bid in 2024. AFP joins Club for Growth as the first right-wing super PACs to openly oppose Trump’s candidacy, according to The Washington Post.
The initial election spending was for digital attack ads in four states to test various political messages with GOP primary voters. One 15-second spot claims that the only way Biden can win is if Trump is the nominee, and points out that 60% of voters oppose the ex-president running again. A second AFPA ad uses the same 60% statistic and claims that Trump “has done a lot of good things,” but that he can’t win in 2024 since swing voters won’t support him. The 15-second ads on YouTube are straightforward, making use of still photos and graphics.
In its disclosures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for May, AFP Action reported that it spent $86,880 in Iowa, $59,714 in Nevada, $69,714 in New Hampshire, and $130,714 in South Carolina on “media placement–message research.” So far, it has not reported a paid media buy to the FEC.
Drew Klein, an adviser to AFPA’s Iowa operation, told the Des Moines Register that the group is “getting involved earlier than ever in the presidential primary process,” and the ads as evidence of their “commitment to support a candidate in the Republican presidential primary who can… win.”
All four states hold early presidential primaries—or in Iowa’s case, caucuses—and although the Koch group has not yet announced its support of any of the many GOP candidates who have announced so far, its message is clear: never Trump again.
AFP Positioned for Action
In early February, AFP CEO Emily Seidel noted in a memo to staff and activists that “the country is in a downward spiral, with both parties reinforcing the bad behavior of the other.” She added that many “people are frustrated. But very few people are in a position to do something about it. AFP is.”
Although the Koch group has not yet announced its support of any of the many GOP candidates who have announced so far, its message is clear: never Trump again.
AFP claims more than 4 million members and announced last month that it now plans to expand its presence from its current 36 states to all 50 in order to “reignite the American dream.”
Seidel reports that during the midterms AFP and AFP Action engaged in a record-breaking 457 state and federal races, knocking on more than 7 million “highly targeted” doors, delivering over 100 million pieces of mail, and reaching millions more voters through phone and email.
Its messages are in sync with those of other Koch-funded groups that work against progressive or Democratic initiatives, including protections for workers and the environment. AFP routinely opposes labor unions, healthcare reform, stimulus spending, and any efforts to combat climate change.
AFP Action spent $69.5 million on federal races during the 2022 election cycle, investing more than $45 million in five competitive U.S. Senate races, with almost half of that spent on candidates who lost in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Of the funds AFPA spent on the midterms, $20 million came from Charles Koch’s conglomerate, Koch Industries, and $26.5 million from the Koch-funded Stand Together Chamber of Commerce.
Club for Growth is Anti-Trump Too
In its latest FEC filing, Club for Growth Action reported spending $55,837 in the past month on field organizing in Iowa. Over the years, the group has had an inconsistent relationship with Trump, both supporting and opposing his endorsed candidates in GOP primaries.
Most of the approximately $69 million it spent on the 2022 midterms came from just three individuals, and its early investments in Iowa this election cycle may signal that billionaire donors like Jeffrey Yass, Richard Uihlein, and Diane Hendricks are searching for someone other than Trump to carry the MAGA mantle.
Since 2018, Uihlein has donated $1.4 million to the gubernatorial campaigns of Florida governor and recently announced presidential candidate Ron DeSantis; Yass contributed $100,000 to the governor’s 2022 reelection campaign; and Hendricks has never contributed to DeSantis.
Uihlein, who heads the shipping and packaging supply company Uline, lives in Illinois, while Hendricks owns ABC Supply, the country’s largest roofing supply company, and lives in Wisconsin. Together, they spent a total of $110.5 million on the 2022 elections and bankrolled the reelection of Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) by donating $22.7 million to the super PAC Wisconsin Truth. Yass, a hedge fund owner from Pennsylvania, spent more than $56 million in the last election cycle.
Given that all three were among the top donors to outside spending groups in the 2022 midterms, they have the capacity to unleash massive spending against Trump in the 2024 primaries. Couple that with AFP’s early attack ads and formidable door-to-door operation and Trump may be up against the level of opposition he has so far only faced from Democrats—except that this round it comes from within his own party.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular