Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has, in recent years, become the leading force in the U.S. House of Representatives for campaign finance reform. As chief sponsor of the DISCLOSE 2012 Act, which was blocked from even getting a hearing in the Republican-controlled House and filibustered to death by the Republican minority in the Senate, he has been the chief advocate for greater transparency for outside groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS that keep their donors secret.

In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Van Hollen expressed optimism that his Republican colleagues may be more open to DISCLOSE and other reforms next year after they too faced secret-money attacks in their own campaigns. Public pressure, he said, will be key in getting the legislation and other reforms aimed at mitigating the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling. And, he noted, he hopes Federal Election Commission and election reform will also be priorities for the Obama administration and the 113th Congress.

Here are some highlights of Van Hollen’s comments:

The DISCLOSE Act:

The best I can say is I hope after this election, we have more converts on this issue. It was very ironic to hear [defeated] House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) complain of all the secret outside money coming into his race. He refused to even hold a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act as Chairman, which meant we had to hold a “rump” hearing, not an official Congressional hearing. I think you’re going to see greater interest from our Republican colleagues. But this will only move with outside pressure. You’ve got people like Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is the sworn enemy of disclosure. He did a 180 — he used to be for full transparency and disclosure. He opposed McCain-Feingold saying we need full disclosure, not this. Then he flip-flopped, after Citizens United. What gives me hope is the public is totally on the side of disclosure and transparency – they believe the public has a right to know who’s spending gobs of secret money to influence these elections.

Other Campaign Finance Reforms:

I’m gonna continue to press on a number of fronts, including urging the IRS to determine whether or not a lot of these organizations were using the cover or their tax-exempt status in order to pursue political and electoral objectives, whether they’re meeting the tests that provide them with tax-exempt status and give them the ability to hide their donors… A number of other avenues dealing with shareholder rights with respect to corporate giving: both shareholder notice (at the very least, shareholders should be notified of corporate contributions) and shareholder approval. We saw a major development with Chevron contributing a lot of money to one of the Congressional super PACs [the company gave $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that ran attack ads against Democratic candidates]. There are corporations that essentially launder their money through other organizations to hide their identities, it’s important to shine a light on that secret money. A lot of corporations prefer to do their direct expenditure contributions in the dark.

Election Reform:

This is another important area: in addition to blatant efforts of some states to limit the democratic process, you also have indirect impediments placed on participation. Requiring someone to stand in line for 3-4 hours to vote is a limit on their rights. First, you had some states trying to limit the right to early voting. On top of that, [some states] created circumstances where you have long lines. It’s a clear impediment to people’s right to vote. It’s too early to say whether it’s bipartisan, but we’re working on a number of pieces of legislation now to deal with this set of issues. Read more

Karl Rove

The non-partisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed complaints Thursday with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alleging that Karl Rove and his secretive Crossroads GPS violated election law and may have engaged in a criminal conspiracy to do so.

Under campaign finance law and FEC regulations, 501(c)(4) groups, like Crossroads GPS, can raise unlimited funds from wealthy individuals and corporations without having to disclose their donors. The only time donors to these secretive groups must be disclosed is when donors give more than $200 explicitly “for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.”

According to CREW, Rove expressly asked for and received millions of dollars in contributions specifically to fund an independent expenditure effort in support of unsuccessful Republican Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel:

Federal law requires any outside group that makes an independent expenditure to disclose the donors who contributed to pay for such ads. Groups like Crossroads GPS normally evade this law by claiming none of their contributions were earmarked for a specific purpose. At an August 2012 fundraiser, however, Rove said an anonymous donor gave Crossroads GPS $3 million specifically for the Ohio Senate race, and told Rove it was a “matching challenge” dependent on the group raising another $3 million for the race. Crossroads GPS ended up spending $6.36 million on independent expenditures in the Ohio race, but did not disclose any donors in nine reports the group filed with the FEC.

CREW also notes that, in a 2011 letter to the FEC, Crossroads GPS said that it “understands the applicable reporting regulations” and that, should it receive “any contributions that are required to be reported,” it would do so as required. Given this, CREW argues, the violations “were deliberate” and “are subject to criminal as well as civil penalties.”

The Rove comment in question was reported in Bloomberg Businessweek in September. That article quoted Rove as saying a donor told him “I’ll give ya’ $3 million, matching challenge,” and that “Bob Castellini, owner of the Cincinnati Reds, is helping raise the other $3 million for that one.” Crossroads GPS would end up spending just over $6 million on the Ohio Senate race.

Tara Malloy, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that if the allegations are true, it “seems reasonable to assume the main contributor gave for the purpose of furthering that expenditure or at least that these allegations warrant an FEC investigation.” But, she notes, the three Republican appointees on the deadlocked six-member Federal Election Commission often block enforcement efforts of this type and have previously noted a difference between contributions furthering independent expenditures in general — and contributions specifically furthering a particular independent expenditure. Even if Rove raised the money to fund independent expenditures in the Ohio Senate race, that interpretation of the rule would require proof that he discussed with them the exact ads before the donation.

Still, she observed, “The allegations are troubling… One would hope the FEC might investigate this matter.”

Crossroads GPS may also be in hot water for its apparent failure to register as a charity in Virginia, as required by law.

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

A Montana judge Wednesday halted a plan by former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R), currently his party’s nominee for Montana governor, to evade state campaign finance limits and take a $500,000 contribution from the state Republican Party. The contribution had been made in a brief six-day window when a federal judge’s ruling prohibited Montana from enforcing its limits on campaign contributions — a ruling now on hold, as a federal appeals court determined a challenge to his order was “likely to succeed.”

District Judge Kathy Seeley issued a restraining order, stopping Hill from spending any of the party’s donation and ordering him to cancel any pending ad buys he has made with those funds. She ordered a hearing to consider the case for Monday morning, just eight days before the election. A federal judge also rejected on Wednesday an attempt by the Hill campaign to move the case to federal court.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell threw out Montana’s campaign contribution limits, writing that they prevent candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” On October 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed his ruling and later ordered that the state’s campaign finance rules be operative for this year’s election.

The Montana Republican Party opted to use the six-day gap to make a large transfer — $500,000 — from its coffers to Hill’s campiagn. The Hill campaign accepted the money and said it would keep and spend the cash, as it was a legal contribution at the time it was made. Democratic nominee and current Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock filed suit claiming the contribution was still illegal — well over the state’s $22,600 maximum aggregate limit. While the state party could have spent the money on ads of its own rather than contribute it to Hill, federal law allows candidates to buy them at a significantly lower rate.