Corporations Legally Allowed To Purchase The 2012 Election; Citizens United

Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses

American Electric Power, one of the country’s largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.

The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obama’s health care bill — even as Aetna’s president publicly voiced support for the legislation.

Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.

Two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into “super PACs,” which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.

The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions.

The review found that corporate donations — many of them previously unreported — went to groups large and small, dedicated to shaping public policy on the state and national levels. From a redistricting fight in Minnesota to the sprawling battleground of the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, corporations are opening their wallets and altering the political world.

Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for “social welfare” groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.

“Companies want to be able to quietly push for their political agendas without being held accountable for it by their customers,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has filed complaints against issue groups. “I think the 501(c)(4)’s are likely to outweigh super PAC spending, because so many donors want to remain anonymous.”

Because social welfare groups are prohibited from devoting themselves primarily to political activity, many spend the bulk of their money on issue advertisements that purport to be educational, not political, in nature. In May, for example, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama for increasing the federal deficit and urges him to cut spending.

The Internal Revenue Service has no clear test for determining what constitutes excessive political activity by a social welfare group. And tax-exempt groups are permitted to begin raising and spending money even before the I.R.S. formally recognizes them. Two years after helping Republicans win control of the House with millions of dollars in issue advertising, Crossroads GPS’s application for tax-exempt status is still pending.

During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.

The growing role of issue groups has prompted a rash of complaints and lawsuits from watchdog organizations accusing groups like the American Action Network, Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA of operating as sham charities whose primary purpose is not the promotion of social welfare, but winning elections. Efforts in Congress to force more disclosure for politically active nonprofit organizations have been repeatedly stymied by Republicans, who have described the push as an assault on free speech.

“These groups are being used as a conduit to hide from voters the identity of people and corporations who are bankrolling these television ads, which are designed to influence the outcome of elections,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.

But Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Crossroads, said, “Individuals and organizations have a First Amendment right to promote their beliefs through advertising, be that advertising against the Iraq war, against climate change or, in the case of Crossroads, advocating for free markets and limited government.”

Labor unions — themselves among the beneficiaries of Citizens United — have also donated millions of dollars to national super PACs and state-level nonprofit groups involved in battles over government spending, collective bargaining and health care.

Donations from corporations and unions alike must be disclosed if they go to expressly political groups like super PACs.

In April, for example, the air traffic controllers’ union contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC. But other contributions are harder to trace. Last year, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gave $100,000 to Advancing Wisconsin, a tax-exempt group that supported labor’s fight with Republicans in that state; the donation was reported nowhere in Wisconsin, but it emerged in an annual financial report that unions must file with the federal Department of Labor.

Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit “business league” under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.

But voluntary disclosures by corporations — usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups — shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.

Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.

Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetna’s check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.

In 2007, Aetna signed an agreement with the Mercy Investment Program, a shareholders group, to disclose trade associations to which it made large contributions. On regulatory filings, the company initially described its $3 million contribution to the Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying expense, but the company now says it was intended to finance “educational activities.”

An Aetna spokesman would not say whether the chamber donation would appear on the company’s 2011 voluntary disclosure. Sister Valerie Heinonen, the director of shareholder advocacy for Mercy Investment Services, said that a failure to do so would violate the company’s pledge.

Beyond the contributions to large, established nonprofits like the chamber and American Action Network, corporate money is also quietly shaping the political discourse through more obscure groups, none of which are required to disclose their donors.

In Minnesota last year, Express Scripts, a major drug benefit manager, gave $10,000 to a Republican-linked group, Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting, involved in a partisan fight over redrawing legislative boundaries.

Express Scripts made the donation, previously unreported, because the “electoral maps in Minnesota were in doubt and we supported efforts to bring certainty to Minnesota voters,” said Brian Henry, a spokesman for the company, which is based in St. Louis. He added that the firm has a facility in Bloomington, Minn.

The reasons behind American Electric Power’s $1 million contribution to the little-known Founding Fund are less clear. The company characterized it as “lobbying” in a corporate governance disclosure last year, but the fund says it does no lobbying. The fund, whose address is a mail drop in Alexandria, Va., would not make any of its directors available for an interview.

The fund’s treasurer, Frank Sadler, is a lobbyist who previously worked for Koch Industries advising nonprofit groups that support free market causes, although he said the Kochs, major Republican donors, were not involved in the group.

In its public filings, the fund said it expected to raise about $10 million this election cycle, primarily from corporations, and use it to promote free markets and “the narrowing of the scope and reach of the federal government.”

A spokesman for American Electric Power, Pat D. Hemlepp, said the company supports organizations “with positions on issues that align with AEP’s positions” and strives to be transparent on political giving. “We also respect the positions of others, including some of the organizations that receive funding from AEP, to not publicly disclose funding or activities.

That’s their right under the law.”


Sources: Aljazeera, NY Times, TPM, Youtube

Vern Buchanan Accused Of Federal Campaign Finance Violations (Read FEC Reports)

Powerful Congressman accused of campaign finance violations

Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan, a self-made Florida millionaire, is only in his third term in Congress, but he already is in charge of fundraising for the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, and he sits on the powerful House Ways and Means committee.

But all that could be jeopardized. Federal investigations underway could result in Buchanan serving his next term behind bars.

CNN has confirmed there are no fewer than four congressional and federal investigations into Buchanan's business practices, his campaign finances and his alleged attempt to try to stop a witness from talking.

Now that witness is stepping forward in an exclusive interview with CNN.

Buchanan's former business partner says the congressman schemed to launder money from his car dealerships into his campaign coffers, and then tried to get others to cover it up.

Many of the questions surrounding Buchanan go back to his auto dealerships in Florida where he made his millions, and back to the days when he worked with his former business partner Sam Kazran.

Their partnership started at what is now a weed-filled lot, the former North Jacksonville Hyundai dealership. Eventually they owned four dealerships together.

"I respected him," Kazran says of their early years together. "I believed him."
But Kazran says he was naive, and that he soon found out the man he believed in was interested in only two things: money and power.

"Mr. Buchanan is a very selfish person, and in my opinion people who go to Congress have got to do good for the people they represent," Kazran says.

Kazran presented to CNN the same information, documents and testimony he has given to federal investigators. The two men had a falling out over their finances, and they've been suing each other for years. Buchanan says Kazran is a disgruntled partner and has lied about what happened.

At the center of Kazran's allegations is a cash swap scheme used to finance some of Buchanan's campaigns. He says employees were forced to write checks, then were reimbursed with cash drawn from Buchanan's car dealerships.

"It was to a point where I said, 'Chief, we can't give you this kind of money. At which point he said, 'Just run it through the corporation,'" Kazran said. "What he said to me was 'Get people to write a check to the campaign and then pay them back through the corporation.'"

Kazran did, and he was soon calling in managers, salesman, even assistants. People who never gave money to campaigns were suddenly writing big checks to Buchanan for Congress and, according to Kazran, getting reimbursed from the dealership.

It added up to almost $70,000 at Kazran's dealership alone, he said.

"I remember one of the partners jokingly saying, 'Boss, you have all the money in the world. Why do you want us to pay you the money?' And he said, 'Well, it doesn't look good if it's coming from me.'"

Kazran took his detailed allegations to the Federal Elections Commission, which was already looking into Buchanan's campaign finances. Investigators there wanted to know not only about how the cash-swap scheme was set up, but if the congressman knew about it.

Kazran says there is no question the congressman knew all about it.
The FEC's initial report found "reason to believe" that Buchanan "knowingly and willfully violated" federal election laws.

Read the initial FEC report (pdf).

But in a later report the FEC pulled back, saying it found credibility problems with both Kazran and Buchanan and not enough corroborating evidence to back up Kazran's testimony.

The FEC then dropped the investigation into Buchanan, stating, "While there is some other evidence in the record that is consistent with Kazran's general allegations, other evidence supports Buchanan's denials or is ambiguous."

Read the FEC report (pdf).

The FEC eventually fined Kazran $5,000 in a settlement because he admitted reimbursing employees for campaign contributions. Kazran has never disputed his involvement, but he says he did it because Buchanan told him to.

While the congressman has said the later FEC report proves he's innocent, the findings at the FEC were more convoluted, stating it came "close to supporting a finding that it is more likely than not" that Buchanan violated the law.


And that's where things get much more serious for the congressman.

During the FEC probe, Buchanan pushed to settle a lawsuit Kazran had brought against him. At the last minute, with a $2.9 million settlement offer from Buchanan dangling in front of him, Kazran says he was given an affidavit to sign.

According to Kazran, the congressman and his attorneys were asking him to sign a statement that was a lie, that Buchanan knew nothing about the campaign cash swap.

Kazran says Buchanan and his team were trying to force him to lie about Buchanan's role in the campaign cash scheme in exchange for the nearly $3 million cash settlement, money which Kazran says he desperately needed, as his finances were in trouble and his wife was suffering from cancer and was undergoing expensive medical treatments.

"A lot of the language of it was really to distance himself...," said Kazran. "In short it said that Mr. Buchanan had nothing to do with it."

Kazran's lawyer, Robert Stok, says it was clearly an effort to lean on Kazran when he was vulnerable.

"He was holding the settlement in escrow," Stok says. "He basically said, 'We can settle, but there's one little thing remaining. All you have to do is sign this affidavit. We release the settlement and everything will be rosy for you.'"
Kazran refused to sign and took the affidavit to federal investigators.

Now, CNN has learned that Buchanan is being investigated for attempting to tamper with a witness in a federal investigation.

After CNN's repeated requests for interviews were ignored, CNN decided to find Buchanan as he emerged from a hearing.

Buchanan would not respond fully to any questions and quickly walked away from CNN's camera. When asked if he tried to get Kazran to sign the affidavit, Buchanan responded "No, no, no, no. No I didn't," adding that he needed to get to another meeting, and that CNN should contact his office.

When asked if he used the affidavit to hold up the $3 million settlement with Kazran, Buchanan replied: "No."

In a recent report, released quietly several weeks ago, the Office of Congressional Ethics wrote: "There is substantial reason to believe that Buchanan attempted to influence the testimony of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC in violation" of federal law and House ethics code.

Read the OCE's report on the affidavit (pdf).

Now a full House ethics committee is looking into it. CNN has also learned that the FBI is conducting its own investigation.

In addition, the Office of Congressional Ethics also found "substantial reason to believe" that Buchanan failed to disclose unearned income on his financial disclosure forms from 2007 to 2010.

Read the report (pdf).

Salvatore Rosa, a former chief financial officer for Buchanan's business interests for five years, said in a recent deposition conducted by Buchanan's attorney that he submitted a federal whistle-blower complaint to the IRS with allegations that Buchanan violated federal tax laws, including tax evasion, fraud and conspiracy to commit tax evasion.

In the deposition, Buchanan's attorneys asked Rosa if he stood to gain a "financial windfall" by filing the complaint. Rosa said "potentially." The deposition did not provide details of the alleged violations of tax law. Rosa declined an interview with CNN.

Buchanan's office responded to CNN's interview request with a statement saying the charges are "politically motivated," that the congressman did nothing wrong, and "We are confident that the Justice Department and House Ethics Committee will reach the same conclusion."

On Friday, lawyers for Buchanan filed a legal motion in Sarasota, Florida, to seal all documents in the Kazran case and to stop Kazran and his lawyers from speaking publicly about it.

Buchanan's lawyers said news stories about the congressman are "publicly disparaging" his character.

Stok said: "As an American citizen, both Congressman Buchanan and I have the fundamental right of free speech. ... Mr. Buchanan's motion is yet another in a series of frivolous efforts to attempt to shut down the case ... and to conceal his wrongdoing behind a shroud of secrecy."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Mitt Romney's Mysterious Super PAC! Donated $1M Then Dissolved (Investigation?)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Secret Corporate Money Powers Pro-Romney Super PAC

A corporation that contributed $1 million to a political action committee supporting the presidential bid of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has been dissolved just four months after being formed. The company's fold, and its relationship to the Romney campaign, marks the new contours of the continued breakdown in campaign finance disclosure in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

The company, W Spann LLC, donated to Restore Our Future PAC on April 28 and cancelled its certificate of incorporation on July 12, according to Delaware state records obtained by NBC's Michael Isikoff.

The company's records were signed and handled by Ropes & Gray lawyer Cameron Casey, a Boston-based expert in estate planning for "high-net-worth individuals and families," according to an official bio on the Ropes & Gray web site.

As Isikoff notes, Ropes & Gray recently represented Bain Capital, the investment firm once headed by Romney. Both the firm and the PAC refused to comment to NBC about the contribution.

Bain Capital's New York office is located at the same address that W Spann listed on its contribution to Restore Our Future. They share the address with Akin Gump lawyer Randy Levine, who is also a major Romney supporter.

Restore Our Future was created by three former Romney campaign staffers to support his bid for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. The committee reported raising $12.2 million during the first six months of 2011, the largest amount raised by any Super PAC.

Super PACs are political committees that can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions so long as they spend only on independent expenditures. Restore Our Future is not allowed to coordinate with the Romney campaign in any way.

The W Spann contribution is one of four $1 million contributions given to Restore Our Future. Two of the other three came from small, unknown corporations and the third from hedge fund billionaire John Paulson. Records filed with the State of Utah for the two corporations did come with some identifying information, connecting them to the executives of the anti-aging product company Nu Skin Enterprises.

The big question for the individuals behind W Spann and Restore Our Future is whether any of their activity is illegal. While it is perfectly legal for a corporation to form and dissolve or to contribute to a political committee like Restore Our Future, it is illegal to use a conduit to contribute to a political committee.

According to Paul Ryan, FEC program director and associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, "Federal law clearly prohibits making a contribution in the name of another." Ryan explained that it would be illegal, "if the humans behind the straw corporation put money into the straw corporation for the purpose of contributing to the Super PAC. It's illegal under federal law to use a straw donor."

The possible legality of contributions like the one W Spann made to Restore Our Future looks like an oversight on the Supreme Court's part. The Court allowed corporate spending on independent expenditures in the Citizens United decision, but also affirmed the need for disclosure.

In the Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "Prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

"People can set up a corporation give millions to a Super PAC and shut it down before they have to file annual reports," allowing donors to remain anonymous, Brett Kappel, counsel at Arent Fox and an expert in campaign finance, told HuffPost. "This was a natural extension of what the Supreme Court allowed in Citizens United."

Still, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said the $1 million corporate donations to Restore Our Future "may well be a violation of the campaign finance laws." In a statement, Wertheimer called for the matter to be "investigated by the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department."

"It takes nine months to create a human, decades for that human to be able to make judgements reaching the level of contributions to political causes, but only a matter of days to create a corporation," Ryan said. "There's a big difference between humans and corporations that the Supreme Court ignored in their Citizens United decision."


View Larger Map

Sources: AOL, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Google Maps

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Donations To Democrats (Ethics Violations)

Keith Olbermann Suspended After Donating To Democrats

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

Olbermann is one of MSNBC’s most recognizable faces, and has emerged as one of the country’s most prominent liberal commentators. A former ESPN star, Olbermann’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” started in 2003 as a traditional news show but evolved into a left-leaning opinion program – and in some ways, led the network into its new identity as the cable-news voice of the left and an attempt to be a counterweight to Fox News.

Olbermann tripled MSNBC’s ratings at 8 p.m. In the past two years, MSNBC’s left-leaning opinionated hosts have helped propel it past CNN in prime time, and even lately during the daytime, too.

MSNBC has branded Olbermann as a prominent face in its new “Lean Forward” marketing campaign. It wasn’t immediately clear what the network would do with Olbermann’s 8 p.m. time slot.

Despite MSNBC’s embrace of a more opinionated format, NBC News has a policy against its employees making political contributions – and it appears that Olbermann ran afoul of that policy, even by contributing to candidates he gave a platform on his show, like Grijalva.

In addition, Olbermann has been a critic of the political donations made by Fox News’s parent company, News Corp., which contributed $1 million each to a pair of organizations trying to defeat Democratic candidates.

Griffin also tweaked rival network Fox over the contributions. “Show me an example of us fundraising,” Griffin told The New York Times last month.

A 2007 MSNBC.com story laid out the rules for the network regarding such contributions:

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee.”

POLITICO discovered the Olbermann donation to Grijalva in a Federal Election Commission filing, and when MSNBC was asked for a comment, it forwarded a statement from Olbermann:

“One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the reelection campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords,” Olbermann said. “I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky.”

In his statement, Olbermann said he wasn’t using his influence to solicit any donations for the candidates.

“I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level,” Olbermann said.

Under FEC rules, an individual donor may give only $2,400 to a candidate per general election campaign. The FEC filings for Olbermann’s contributions list an address that is a Mailboxes Etc. storefront in New York, and it also lists his occupation as a newscaster for NBC Television.

News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, came under fire from liberals during the past election cycle for its contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On Oct. 7, Olbermann had House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) on his show to discuss the donations. At one point, he asked Clyburn: “Is there a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable-news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party?”

Olbermann’s contributions came amid a brutal campaign season for Democrats.

Giffords had appeared on Olbermann’s program in May, as did Conway. During his more recent broadcasts, Olbermann also made frequent references to the “Aqua Buddha” controversy involving Conway’s Republican Senate rival, Rand Paul, who handily won election Tuesday.

Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was just declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea-party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on "Countdown" — one of several appearances he made on the show.
Grijalva had seemed to be in a safe race until the month before the election, when he became targeted by outside groups. In mid-October, national Democratic interests began putting money into his district to compete with fundraising for McClung from outside conservative groups.

On Oct. 28, Grijalva went on Olbermann’s show and fielded questions about a story linking profit motives of private prisons to Arizona's new immigration crackdown. It was the sixth time Grijalva had appeared on "Countdown" in a little more than the past six months.

Grijalva not only opposed the immigration law — known as S.B. 1070 — but inadvertently put himself in electoral jeopardy by calling for an economic boycott of his own home state in response, a move that didn't go over so well with cash-strapped Arizonans.

"It's almost extraordinary to believe that once we got past the original phony reason for it, which was security at the border, when obviously it didn't pertain to that whatsoever, that the real reason behind that was well, this is to intimidate people of Hispanic descent. Well, it turns out there's an even more base, cynical reason behind it. Am I wrong about this?" Olbermann asked. "Is there anything you can tell us about the relationship between these private prisons and the lawmakers who supported this monstrosity of a bill?”

Grijalva responded: "It is a wonderful I-told-you-so moment."





Olbermann Suspended For Dem Contributions

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's primetime firebrand host, has been suspended indefinitely for violating the ethics policies of his employer earlier this year when he donated to three Democrats seeking federal office, MSNBC announced Friday.

"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement.

First reported by Politico and confirmed by Federal Election Commission filings, the primetime television host gave $2,400 – the maximum individual amount allowed – to each of the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway, and Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. (View PDF's of FEC filings for Conway, Grijalva, and Giffords)

Conway lost his bid to Republican Rand Paul while Grijalva eked out a win over Tea Party-backed candidate Ruth McClung for a fifth term. Grijalva found himself in an increasingly competitive race after he announced his support of a boycott of Arizona businesses in response to the state's controversial new immigration law and often appeared on Olbermann's show where he found a sympathetic audience. CNN, meanwhile, has yet to declare a winner in Giffords' race, but the Democrat currently holds about a 3,000-vote lead with all precincts reporting.

The contributions may have violated an NBC policy that requires employers of the news organization to obtain permission ahead of any political donations or activities that could be deemed as a conflict of interest. CNN institutes a similar policy.

In a statement to Politico before the suspension was announced, Olbermann defended the contributions:

"One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords," he said in the statement. "I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky."

Olbermann, as well as MSNBC executives, was a vocal critic of the $1 million donation by Fox News' parent News Corp. to the Republican Governor's Association earlier this year, saying at the time, "We now have another million reasons Fox News is the Republican news channel."

In a subsequent show, Olbermann also pressed House Majority Whip James Clyburn if there was a "legislative response" to a networks that "starts to shill for partisan causes."

A News Corp. spokesman defended the donation when it was first reported in August.

"News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA's pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy," the spokesman said.




Keith Olbermann Suspended Over Political Donations To Democrats


MSNBC TV host Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely on Friday for making campaign donations to three Democratic congressional candidates, apparently in violation of NBC News ethics policy.

The announcement came in a one-sentence statement from msnbc TV President Phil Griffin: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

The donations were first reported by the Politico website earlier in the day.

Olbermann acknowledged the donations in a statement to Politico, saying he gave the maximum legal donation of $2,400 to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who waged an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate against Tea Party standard-bearer Rand Paul.

Like most news organizations, NBC News, parent of msnbc TV, prohibits political contributions by its journalists without prior approval of the president. (Msnbc.com, a joint venture of NBC News and Microsoft, also has a policy against its journalists contributing to political campaigns.)

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest,” it reads. “Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee."

Politico noted that the donations to Grijalva and Giffords were made on Oct. 28, the same day that Grijalva appeared on Olbermann’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” show. Grijalva won re-election on Tuesday, while Giffords on Friday was clinging to a narrow lead over Republican Jesse Kelly in a race that the Associated Press has not yet called.

In his statement to Politico, Olbermann said he did not encourage his viewers or other staff members to donate to the candidates.

“I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level,” he was quoted as saying.





Olbermann Suspended From MSNBC For Campaign Donations

Keith Olbermann, the top anchor on MSNBC, was suspended on Friday after the channel discovered that he had made campaign contributions to three Democrats.

The MSNBC president, Phil Griffin, issued a statement saying, “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

No one at NBC News would speculate about what this might mean for Mr. Olbermann’s future, though one NBC executive suggested this was not a step toward firing him.

Politico had reported Friday morning that Mr. Olbermann’s contributions were in apparent violation of MSNBC policy.

Mr. Olbermann hosts the most popular program on MSNBC, “Countdown.” He worked at MSNBC in the late 1990s and re-joined the channel in 2003.

He has long been a volatile figure inside MSNBC, in part for his polarizing points of view. He has sometimes clashed with Mr. Griffin and other managers over editorial decisions, and he has been publicly critical of some of his former bosses.

Mr. Olbermann did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the suspension was announced Friday afternoon.

MSNBC has a number of hosts who could fill in for Mr. Olbermann, including Lawrence O’Donnell, who recently started to host a 10 p.m. program on the channel; and Cenk Uygur, who recently was signed as a contributor.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Politico, Google Maps

Who Is Alvin Greene? Now They Want To Know! Ha Ha Ha

Who’s Alvin Greene? S.C. State Asks After Vote


For a few hours this week, it looked as if South Carolina might ditch its never-fail reputation for political scandal in favor of a genuine history-making event.

There was Nikki Haley, a lawmaker of Indian descent, beaming on election night with her husband and children after taking a major step toward becoming the first female governor of the state. It was a feel-good image to obscure the stain of a campaign marked by ethnic slurs, accusations of marital infidelity and yet more national marveling over how a single state can produce a string of political embarrassments as long as the Appalachian Trail.

But then, the television cameras started rolling on Alvin Greene’s overgrown lawn.

“Yeah, it’s been pretty nonstop for a few days,” said Mr. Greene, 32, in a phone interview Friday.

Because everyone wants to know how Mr. Greene, an unemployed Army veteran who had been completely unknown until Tuesday, inexplicably defeated a heavily favored former legislator and judge to become the state’s Democratic nominee for the Senate — and the state’s latest political circus act.

Mr. Greene had just a few peaceful hours to savor his victory in the tiny, ramshackle home he shares with his elderly father along a quiet highway in Manning, where he has been bunkered since election night. Then, The Associated Press reported that Mr. Greene was arrested in November and is facing a felony obscenity charge; he is accused of showing pornography to a University of South Carolina student. He had been discharged “involuntarily” from the Army and showed no signs of having waged an actual campaign in recent months — no advertising, no staff, no money.

Mr. Greene, who declined to comment on the obscenity charge, would not say how he came up with the $10,440 to register his candidacy. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina and the House majority whip, suggested that Mr. Greene was a “Republican plant” and that the circumstance reeked of the “shenanigans” that have become the state’s trademark.

“We have embarrassment fatigue here,” said Dick Harpootlian, the former Democratic chairman of the state. “If there is an embarrassment equivalent of post-traumatic stress disorder, South Carolina has it.”

Even casual observers across the country can recite the recent litany of Palmetto State political antics. The Republican donnybrook between John McCain and George W. Bush in 2000 left more scars than any presidential primary campaign in recent memory. Gov. Mark Sanford’s public swoon over an Argentinean mistress — an affair he carried on while claiming to have been hiking the Appalachian Trail — remains a spigot of late-night punch lines (while Mr. Sanford remains the state’s governor).

The Republican primary campaign to succeed Mr. Sanford featured two operatives claiming to have had extramarital affairs with Ms. Haley (who strenuously denied the accusations) as well as a Republican state senator dismissing her with an ethnic slur.

Now comes Mr. Greene, adding Democratic balance to the state’s Republican-dominated scandal sheets of recent vintage. Mr. Clyburn immediately called for someone to investigate Mr. Greene’s candidacy — who paid for the campaign, who was behind it, how did he ever win?

Mr. Harpootlian, a former district attorney, wants to know why Mr. Greene had not filed any papers with the Federal Election Commission, and Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman from South Carolina, said he suspected that someone tampered with the voting machines.

“There is something genuinely mysterious about this whole thing,” said Mr. Fowler, whose wife, Carol, the current chairwoman of the state’s Democratic Party, has called for Mr. Greene to step aside.

Mr. Greene said he had no intention of doing so. He said the whole gambit has been his idea, that he paid the entry fee and that his was — and remains — “a self-managed campaign.” He said he would challenge his Republican opponent, Senator Jim DeMint, to a debate in September. “It will be one hour. Live. On a major network,” he proposed.

Mr. Greene said he was determined to go through with this, which would seem to belie the somewhat shell-shocked demeanor he has projected in several interviews over the last 72 hours. “Can I end this?” Mr. Greene asked in the middle of a brief interview with a local television station in front of his house Wednesday. It might as well be his campaign’s official motto, or wish, at least as far as leading Democrats are concerned.

“Sad,” Mr. Clyburn said, referring to the spectacle that Mr. Greene has become on the cable and YouTube circuits.

Even in Manning, a town of 4,000 where everybody knows everybody, nobody seems to know Alvin Greene. “He just all of a sudden shows up and — boom!” said L. G. Mathis, 61, the owner of L. G.’s Cut and Style, a barber shop downtown.

It is another embarrassment for South Carolina, said Carl F. Jackson Jr, a graphic designer at a local newspaper, The Clarendon Citizen. “Anybody who got beyond eighth grade is a little astounded by this,” Mr. Jackson said, adding his own theory of how Mr. Greene had won. “Maybe voters thought it was the singer, Al Green.”

When asked in a phone interview Friday whether he was having “fun,” Mr. Greene quickly answered yes, before asking for clarification.

“What do you mean by fun?”

Without waiting for an answer, Mr. Greene said he was not interested in “fun,” or signing autographs (which he has yet to do) or indulging any of the trappings of his unlikely celebrity. He is interested in sticking to the issues that are important — jobs, education, justice — and to conveying why he is “the best candidate for the United States Senate in South Carolina.”

Before elaborating on why he was, Mr. Greene excused himself, saying that he had to finish another interview.







S.C. State Certifies Greene's Surprising Primary Win


In a building on Devine Street, in a small conference room on the first floor, a man, a woman and three others patched in by conference call Friday certified one of the most surprising election results in S.C. history.

Alvin Greene - an unemployed military veteran facing a felony obscenity charge, unknown by Democrats even in the rural county where he lives - is the official winner of the S.C. Democratic Party's primary for the U.S. Senate, the S.C. Election Commission decided.

Democrat Party officials scratched their heads over how Greene's candidacy moved forward despite that pending felony charge.

His vanquished primary opponent, former state legislator Vic Rawl of Charleston, wouldn't talk to The State on Friday but is reported to be poring over the results, looking for something that might explain how Greene got 59 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate, Tom Clements, is hoping disaffected Democrats will turn to him as the best hope to unseat Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the fall.

And the 5th Circuit Solicitor's Office is looking into how Greene was able to get a Public Defender, which normally requires that a defendant be broke, to help him with that obscenity charge, given the $10,400 filing fee that Greene paid to run for the U.S. Senate.

Vanity Fair, CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times were among the media outlets poking around Friday for details on the unusual case.

Greene himself answered the telephone Friday at his home in Manning and repeated what Democratic Party officials did not want to hear: He has no intention of dropping out of the race.

"The people of South Carolina have spoken," he said. "I am their candidate. I want to talk about the issues and not anything else. Jobs, education and justice."

It was a refrain Greene offered often during the course of a 15-minute interview, punctuated more than a half-dozen times by interruptions that appeared to be from his call-waiting system.

Asked what people should know about him, Greene paused, said "OK, OK" several times and added he was born in Florence and grew up in Manning.

He served in the Air Force and the Army, which gave him an honorable discharge he described as "involuntary."

"They should know my campaign slogan is, "Let's get South Carolina back to work", Greene said.

Asked if he had help paying his filing fee, as suggested by U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in a conference call on Thursday, Greene said: "I paid that with my own money."

Greene said he campaigned across the state but offered no details of any particular places where he had traveled.

A pair of state legislators who met with Greene Thursday to urge him to drop his Senate bid came away concerned about Greene's mental state.

Asked if they or the people of South Carolina should be concerned about his mental state, Greene simply said, "No."

On Aug. 16, political parties will certify to the State Election Commission that their candidates for the fall election can or will be able to meet the requirements of the office they seek.

Democrats could not replace Greene on the ballot unless he meets narrow, non-political guidelines for stepping down.

Meanwhile, fingers are being pointed at the state Democratic Party, its leaders and others for failing to check out Greene.

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the S.C. State Democratic Party, said the party's researcher did look into Greene's background but did not turn up anything unusual.

Greene was arrested in November and charged with obscenity after a University of South Carolina student said he showed her pornographic pictures in a computer lab and suggested they go to her room.

Fowler said she did not find out about the charge until after the primary.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, McClatchy Newspapers, NY Daily News, NY Times, Seattle Times, The State, Vanity Fair, WCNC, Google Maps

Alvin Greene's Win Is Certified, Feds Launch Formal Investigation

S.C. State Certifies Greene's Surprising Primary Win


In a building on Devine Street, in a small conference room on the first floor, a man, a woman and three others patched in by conference call Friday certified one of the most surprising election results in S.C. history.

Alvin Greene - an unemployed military veteran facing a felony obscenity charge, unknown by Democrats even in the rural county where he lives - is the official winner of the S.C. Democratic Party's primary for the U.S. Senate, the S.C. Election Commission decided.

Democrat Party officials scratched their heads over how Greene's candidacy moved forward despite that pending felony charge.

His vanquished primary opponent, former state legislator Vic Rawl of Charleston, wouldn't talk to The State on Friday but is reported to be poring over the results, looking for something that might explain how Greene got 59 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate, Tom Clements, is hoping disaffected Democrats will turn to him as the best hope to unseat Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the fall.

And the 5th Circuit Solicitor's Office is looking into how Greene was able to get a Public Defender, which normally requires that a defendant be broke, to help him with that obscenity charge, given the $10,400 filing fee that Greene paid to run for the U.S. Senate.

Vanity Fair, CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times were among the media outlets poking around Friday for details on the unusual case.

Greene himself answered the telephone Friday at his home in Manning and repeated what Democratic Party officials did not want to hear: He has no intention of dropping out of the race.

"The people of South Carolina have spoken," he said. "I am their candidate. I want to talk about the issues and not anything else. Jobs, education and justice."

It was a refrain Greene offered often during the course of a 15-minute interview, punctuated more than a half-dozen times by interruptions that appeared to be from his call-waiting system.

Asked what people should know about him, Greene paused, said "OK, OK" several times and added he was born in Florence and grew up in Manning.

He served in the Air Force and the Army, which gave him an honorable discharge he described as "involuntary."

"They should know my campaign slogan is, "Let's get South Carolina back to work", Greene said.

Asked if he had help paying his filing fee, as suggested by U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in a conference call on Thursday, Greene said: "I paid that with my own money."

Greene said he campaigned across the state but offered no details of any particular places where he had traveled.

A pair of state legislators who met with Greene Thursday to urge him to drop his Senate bid came away concerned about Greene's mental state.

Asked if they or the people of South Carolina should be concerned about his mental state, Greene simply said, "No."

On Aug. 16, political parties will certify to the State Election Commission that their candidates for the fall election can or will be able to meet the requirements of the office they seek.

Democrats could not replace Greene on the ballot unless he meets narrow, non-political guidelines for stepping down.

Meanwhile, fingers are being pointed at the state Democratic Party, its leaders and others for failing to check out Greene.

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the S.C. State Democratic Party, said the party's researcher did look into Greene's background but did not turn up anything unusual.

Greene was arrested in November and charged with obscenity after a University of South Carolina student said he showed her pornographic pictures in a computer lab and suggested they go to her room.

Fowler said she did not find out about the charge until after the primary.







Congressman Jim Clyburn Wants Alvin Greene Investigated



The No. 3 Democrat in the U.S. House called on federal authorities Thursday to investigate how an unemployed South Carolina military veteran won the state's Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

"Here is Alvin Greene, unemployed, he goes into the S.C. Democratic Party headquarters and pays $10,000. That's no little bit of money for an unemployed person," House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said. "This guy, who is he? Where did he come from?"

Greene, 32, stunned the Democratic Party establishment Tuesday night when he handily defeated Vic Rawl, a four-term state lawmaker and former judge, for the party's nomination. Rawl, who had campaigned little but already raised $186,000, was forced to scrap a fundraiser planned for Thursday night.

Greene has not reported any fundraising, run any ads, or put up signs in his challenge of Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. The website AlvinGreene2010.com was established on Thursday, but it was unclear if it was officially posted by Greene's campaign.

He had been considered such a long shot that neither his opponent nor the media bothered to check his background, which includes a November arrest on a charge of felony obscenity.

Greene, who says he left the military last August after 13 years in the Army and Air Force, has said he paid the $10,440 filing fee by saving up two years of his service pay. On Thursday, Clyburn said he's skeptical Greene paid the fee himself and demanded that federal authorities investigate where the money came from.

"You ought not be allowed to subvert the electoral process in this country," Clyburn said. "I really believe that the federal authorities can get Mr. Greene to talk about where he got his money from and what's behind this."

Party officials asked Greene to sit out of the race after The Associated Press reported he faces a felony charge, which stems from a University of South Carolina student's complaint that he showed her a pornographic website, then talked about going to her room at a university dorm.

"I've recovered. I really have," said that student, Camille McCoy.

McCoy said she wanted to speak out after learning that the man charged in the case is now a Senate candidate.

"I felt it was my duty to let the rest of South Carolina know who's running. You should all be on the lookout because who knows what he wants to do," McCoy said.

But Greene insists he's staying in the race.

"I am a legitimate candidate," Greene said Thursday, in response to questions about Clyburn's investigation request. "There's no need for it."

Arriving for interviews at a Columbia television station Thursday afternoon in a dark suit, driven in a hired car, Greene marked a stark contrast to the day before. On Wednesday, Greene greeted a reporter at his childhood home in Manning, clad in a T-shirt and sweat pants.

Greene would be required to report campaign spending to the Federal Election Commission, which regulates federal campaign finances. But the cash for the filing fee itself is given directly by candidates to the state party they wish to represent, and that money isn't subject to FEC filing requirements, officials with the agency said Thursday.

That answer doesn't satisfy Clyburn, who suspects there is more to be learned about Greene's pursuit.

"He's been paid to stay in it, by somebody," Clyburn said. "I just think this is a ploy by someone to dishonor and embarrass the Democratic Party."

Joel Sawyer, executive director of South Carolina's Republican Party, said Clyburn's allegations are evidence that the state's Democrats know they can't defeat DeMint.

"The Democratic Party is grasping at straws, and making absurd accusations to cover for their laughable incompetence in vetting candidates," Sawyer said. "That being said, if they're not even going to bother doing basic things like checking to see if their candidates have pending felony charges, we're feeling pretty doggone good about November already."

On Thursday, NewsChannel 36 reporter Rad Berky knocked on the door of the home where Greene lives with his father in Manning, S.C.

A Democratic Party activist from Manning, Henry King, who is also a friend of Greene's father, stopped by the house too, hoping to get some answers from Greene.

"I guess politically, people are doing whatever they can to straighten out this mess. I really don't know what to say at this point," King said as he waited outside, hoping Greene would answer the door.

Most Manning residents had no idea Greene was even running, including another longtime family friend, Isaac Mitchum, who voted for Greene, only after seeing his name on the ballot.

Mitchum said he did not know about the felony charge and said it might have changed the way he voted. "But I'd never heard of it," he said. "Far as I know they are fine family people."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, McClatchy Newspapers, NY Daily News, NY Times, Seattle Times, The State, Vanity Fair, WCNC, Google Maps

Cal Cunningham Bypasses Marshall In Fundraising, Burr Has $8M

Cal Cunningham Bypasses Rival Elaine Marshall In Fundraising


Both N.C. Democratic Senate candidates Cal Cunningham and Elaine Marshall have had to scrap to find enough money to finance their campaigns.

They've appealed to family, friends, law partners and even entertainers such as Barbra Streisand and Clay Aiken.

Although Elaine Marshall had a two-month head start, Cunningham has significantly passed her in the money contest.

He has pulled in $737,499, compared with her $514,541, as of April 14, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

This is a modest sum compared with the $8.4 million raised by Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the man they would like to replace.

Here's a look at how Cunningham and Elaine Marshall have raised their campaign kitties as they prepare for the June 22 runoff, according to an analysis of campaign records by The News & Observer.

There's no place like home

Senate candidates often raise money nationally, but Cunningham and Marshall raised most of theirs in North Carolina. Here are their five top states:

Cunningham:

North Carolina - $489,018 (77 percent)

Washington, D.C. - $34,603 (5 percent)

California - $22,116 (3 percent)

New Jersey - $14,600 (2 percent)

Hawaii - $10,250 (2 percent)

Marshall:

North Carolina - $309,256 (96 percent)

Ohio - $5,000 (1 percent)

Washington, D.C. - $4,250 (1 percent)

California - $2,900 (1 percent)

South Carolina - $1,000 (less than 1 percent)

Regional split

Cunningham, who lives in Lexington and practices law in Winston-Salem, is strongest in the west, while Marshall, the secretary of state who has homes in Raleigh and Lillington, does better in the east. Here are their five top cities for donations:

Cunningham:

Lexington - $70,707

Winston-Salem - $66,014

Raleigh - $65,100

Chapel Hill - $54,472

Durham - $39,300

Marshall:

Raleigh - $72,370

Charlotte - $27,700

Chapel Hill - $16,600

Cary - $16,550

Asheville - $13,110

All in the family

Elaine Marshall has lent her campaign $71,500. Cunningham has not lent any money to his campaign, but family members have donated at least $23,000 to his political committee.

Legal eagles

Both candidates are lawyers and receive considerable backing from lawyers. Marshall has strong backing from trial lawyers, receiving at least $38,325 from dozens of them.

Cunningham has received $19,650 from 38 lawyers at Kilpatrick Stockton, the firm where he is a partner. The 500-member law firm has represented such high-profile clients as Adidas, Blue Cross Blue Shield, British Petroleum, Google, Pepsi, Fox, Krispy Kreme andWachovia.

Hollywood

Cunningham has a somewhat star-studded donor list. He has received donations from singers Barbra Streisand and Clay Aiken; Alan Warner, president of Warner Brothers; and Dayna Bochco, a TV producer whose husband produced such series as "Hill Street Blues" and "L.A. Law."

Donors big and little

Marshall has received more of her money in small donations. Forty-three percent of her campaign donations came from people who gave less than $1,000, compared with 26 percent for Cunningham. Cunningham has tended to raise more from larger donations. Eighteen percent of Cunningham's donations came from individuals who gave $4,000 or more, compared with 4 percent for Marshall.

(These figures only apply to individual contributions, not political action committees.)

Lobbyists

A handful of Raleigh lobbyists whom Marshall regulates as secretary of state gave a total of $2,000 to her campaign. They are Coleen Kochanek, Frank Gray, Ed Turlington and Charles Wilkins.

Washington weighs in

Cunningham, who has the backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has received $36,000 in contributions from political committees connected to Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Carl Levin of Michigan, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Dick Durbin of Illinois.


View Larger Map


Sources: F.E.C., McClatchy Newspapers, N.C. General Assembly, Youtube, Google Maps