Read @ NYTimes.com

Donors’ Names Kept Secret as They Influence the Midterms

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies would certainly seem to the casual observer to be a political organization: Karl Rove, a political adviser to President George W. Bush, helped raise money for it; the group is run by a cadre of experienced political hands; it has spent millions of dollars on television commercials attacking Democrats in key Senate races across the country.

Yet the Republican operatives who created the group earlier this year set it up as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, so its primary purpose, by law, is not supposed to be political.

The rule of thumb, in fact, is that more than 50 percent of a 501(c)(4)’s activities cannot be political. But that has not stopped Crossroads and a raft of other nonprofit advocacy groups like it — mostly on the Republican side, so far — from becoming some of the biggest players in this year’s midterm elections, in part because of the anonymity they afford donors, prompting outcries from campaign finance watchdogs.

The chances, however, that the flotilla of groups will draw much legal scrutiny for their campaign activities seem slim, because the organizations, which have been growing in popularity as conduits for large, unrestricted donations among both Republicans and Democrats since the 2006 election, fall into something of a regulatory netherworld.

Neither the Internal Revenue Service, which has jurisdiction over nonprofits, nor the Federal Election Commission, which regulates the financing of federal races, appears likely to examine them closely, according to campaign finance watchdogs, lawyers who specialize in the field and current and former federal officials.  (Emphasis added)

A revamped regulatory landscape this year has elevated the attractiveness to political operatives of groups like Crossroads and others, organized under the auspices of Section 501(c) of the tax code. Unlike so-called 527 political organizations, which can also accept donations of unlimited size, 501(c) groups have the advantage of usually not having to disclose their donors’ identity. (Emphasis added)

This is arguably more important than ever after the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case earlier this year that eased restrictions on corporate spending on campaigns. (Emphasis added)

Continues @ NYTimes.com
=======================

In the wake of the SCOTUS decision and the existing landscape of lax implementation of rules and oversight of non-profits, this is very important.  There are all kinds of non-profits.. and there are all kinds of corporations... all will be raising their political capital going forward to fund elections in various ways. 

Can you see big donors hiding behind 501(c) companies and quietly promoting their causes?  If you said - oh that was already happening - well, it got a whole lot more complicated in the past year.

So... Watch out!! 

Read the fine print on all advertisements.  For example, the ad saying that letting the Bush tax cuts expire will hurt the small businesses -- showing very poor looking people saying so in the ads -- was funded by the Petroleum Manufacturers of America [or Petroleum Manufacturers Association or something like that]. Not exactly a small company. That is a small example which will be much more impactful when they start funding advertisements for individual politicians - they literally buy their tickets into the Congressional vote for a few years.  That is just plain wrong.

As individuals, make sure your money is going towards the exact planks you support... especially on the social scale... and I emphasize social scale because it is the social agenda that gets hidden and masqueraded behind the economic woes.

-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 21st of September 2010 08:27:37 AM