At the end of last year, I reported on the mysterious $11 million dollars that flowed into California to defeat ballot propositions 30 and 32. The flow of money was traced as it passed through several non-profit organizations, ultimately going all the way back to a known dark money conduit known as Americans for Job Security. Here's a refresher:

AJS Spending in 2010-2012 cycle

• The $11 million drop into California notwithstanding, AJS also dropped $15 million into the national elections. All of their media buys went through Crossroads Media, and nearly all of the funds were spent in opposition to Barack Obama.
• In Arizona, Americans for Responsible Leadership dropped $1.1 million to oppose an open primary system in Arizona and an increase in their sales taxes. Because of differences in state campaign finance laws, it appears that ARL will not be compelled to disclose their donors. But based upon similarities, it's not a far leap to assume the money flow was similar to the one in California.
• In late 2011, AJS ran anti-union ads in New Hampshire tying to the Republican primary debate held there.
• AJS dropped $689,000 in Wisconsin to oppose Eric Hovde, the less conservative candidate running for the open Senate seat Tammy Baldwin eventually won.

Continue reading »

Americans for Job Security Anti-Obama ad

After Citizens United, attention has been paid to the sheer amount of money the right wing poured into elections and how that money has influenced public opinion, debate, and outcomes. But for the most part, attention has been placed on the so-called SuperPACs and their participation. While American Crossroads and others were certainly big players on the national landscape, little attention has been paid to how they operate on a state by state basis, and how they are used to launder money across state lines in order to subvert even the mildest disclosure requirements. In this post and ones to follow, I'll be putting the spotlight on these organizations and how they operate together to subvert democracy.

In California, Governor Jerry Brown put a measure on the November 2012 ballot to raise income and sales taxes in order to continue funding California schools and universities (Prop 30). Unlike most tax measures, Californians were in support of raising taxes in order to save our struggling school system. Another ballot measure would have stripped unions in California of their ability to participate in political speech while giving large corporations unlimited ability to spend on elections (Prop 32). Public opinion was mixed on that proposition.

In October, 2012, $11 million came into the state to oppose Prop 30 and support Prop 32. The organization which received and spent the money was called Americans for Responsible Leadership, a group organized in Arizona in 2011. California authorities filed a lawsuit to force Americans for Responsible Leadership (ARL) to reveal their donors. Ultimately, they won the right to discover who gave ARL the funds, but they didn't discover the people behind the money.

When ARL was forced to disclose, they revealed that the money had come from an organization in Phoenix called the Center to Protect Patients Rights. When the Center to Protect Patients Rights was asked for the source of the funds, they pointed to Americans for Job Security (AJS). (application/pdf - 111.5 KB)

In summary, the money trail looked like this:

Mystery donors give $11 million --> Americans for Job Security --> Center for Patients Rights --> Americans for Responsible Leadership --> Ad buys in California opposing Prop 30, supporting Prop 32

Americans for Job Security: Conduit for dark money

Americans for Job Security has been on the landscape since 1997. According to their IRS filings, they are a trade association, exempt from taxes under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, established by business owners to convey a "pro-paycheck message." Established by Bush political director David Carney, its chief officer through 2008 was Michael Dubke. Michael Dubke is a founding partner in two critical Republican operations: Crossroads Media and the BlackRock Group. Crossroads Media is the primary media buyer for the Karl Rove organizations, Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads. The BlackRock group is the architect of the SwiftBoat Network structure, where supposedly a third party coordinates messaging between unrelated nonprofit groups. AJS is currently run by a 27-year old student at Johns Hopkins University by the name of Stephen DeMaura, whose primary claim to fame prior to this was creating an anti-Hillary Clinton Facebook page in 2008 and serving as director of the New Hampshire Republican Party.

Continue reading »

California's 2012 General Election ballot had some key ballot measures on it. One was an initiative requiring food labels to disclose whether or not products manufactured were made with genetically modified foods (GMO).

Until mid-September, the measure led with overwhelming margins. Then the billionaires came to the state. In the case of Proposition 37, they at least did their evil in the sunlight. The same can't be said of other billionaire efforts.

But for Proposition 37, they gave, and they gave, and they gave. And when they weren't sure they were going to win, they called out their US Chamber of Commerce friends to give, and then whipped up some grassroots support from local farmers and grocers.

All in all, $40 million was spent to defeat a measure which would have expanded food labels. Food labels! Here is the million-dollar plus Hall of Shame, much of it reported after the election:

• Monsanto: $8,100,000
• DuPont: $5,400,000
• Dow Agroscience: $2,000,000
• PepsiCo: $2,055,180
• Kraft Foods Global: $1,916,095
• Bayer CropScience: $2,000,000
• Sygenta Corp: $1,936,700
• BASF Plant Sciences: $ 2,000,000
• NestleUSA: $ 1,754,129
• Coca-Cola: $1,394,191
• Conagra Foods: $1,020,102
• General Mills: $1,115,899

The total from those twelve donors was over $34 million of the $40 million spent to defeat the initiative. For food labels.

Evidently food labels step on right wing treasured tropes, like "frivolous lawsuits" and disclosure, because in their opinions, the science proves GMO foods to be perfectly safe. Of course, there might be a problem with that thought pattern, since corporations often buy their own scientists to keep doing what they're doing.

Whether or not there's a safety issue, labeling food seems like a no-brainer. Those who want to read labels, do. Those who don't want to read them, don't. It's really that simple, unless you're Monsanto and don't want any negative PR or suggestions that what you're doing might really not be good for people.

Despite the transparency of Proposition 37's opposition in 2012, it may be the last time we see it. I noticed a $375,000 contribution to the effort made by the Council for Biotechnology Information. It sounds all think-tanky and stuff, doesn't it? But it's really just a 501(c)(6) organization whose board represents the top six or so donors on that giving list. It's possible that between now and the next effort to try and get disclosure on food labels, that organization will have a companion organization that's a 501(c)(4) -- civic interest organization -- through which all opposition dollars flow into California.

As it was, money given to defeat Proposition 37 found its way to candidates, the California Republican Party, organizations with names like the Coalition for Senior Citizen Security, Continuing the Republican Revolution, and the Council of Concerned Women Voters, ostensibly to pay to include the "No" recommendation on their slate mailings. Really, it was just a way use targeted mailing lists to remind voters that good Republicans oppose food labeling because Wall Street and their corporate masters would prefer not to spend the miniscule amount necessary to make sure consumers know what they're buying.

And so you have it. Prop 37 went down in flames and with it, common sense, along with the simple idea of actually knowing what we're eating before we eat it.