bundlers fundraiser

SEE FUNDRAISER$

new 8/14 may be various types under various regs

apparently still need to be disclosed, but not often?

see also dark money 501c4

...federal candidates are not required to disclose information about bundlers — elite fundraisers who solicit contributions to a candidate from wealthy friends, business associates and other contacts — unless the bundler is a federal lobbyist. However, previous presidential candidates such as George W. Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voluntarily disclosed at least some information about their bundlers.

As with his 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump is hiding the fundraisers who are powering his 2020 reelection bid. And many of Trump’s Democratic opponents appear to be following his lead.

Read more

10/19

==

jfc 2016/5

==

For now, the campaign disclosed only the names of lobbyists acting as bundlers, as required by law, showing that eight raised a collective $228,400 for Bush during the second quarter of 2015.

The top bundlers were William P. Killmer of the Mortgage Banking Association, who raised $36,200; Dirk Van Dongen of the National Association of Wholesalers, who raised $33,900; and Ignacio Sanchez, co-chair of the lobbying practice at DLA Piper, who raised $32,400.

Bush’s rivals for the GOP nomination — even long-shot candidates lagging in the polls — were also able to tout big fundraising hauls, thanks to their outside allies. Former Texas governor Rick Perry raised just $1 million for his campaign but has generated more than $16 million in super PAC money, largely from three wealthy backers. The biggest sum came from his campaign finance chair, oil pipeline executive Kelcy Warren, who donated $6 million.

[Rick Perry’s $6 million man]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who pulled less than $600,000 during his first official week as a candidate, will benefit from three different groups — a super PAC and two nonprofits — that have collected more than $8 million so far.

Brad Todd, the GOP strategist running the pro-Jindal Believe Again super PAC, said an expanding universe of donors has helped fuel the big takes.

Seven-figure political contributions are a regular feature of politics this decade, but only outside groups like super PACs are allowed to accept such large checks. Contributions to candidates and party committees are still subject to strict limits, which makes gathering the huge sums that it takes to run competitive campaigns difficult and extremely time-consuming.

For example, to raise the $11,474,077 that winning Senate candidates averaged in 2012, a candidate would need 2,207 donors to contribute the individual maximum of $5,200, which is why office-seekers are spending an ever-increasing amount of time on the phone with potential donors. Meanwhile, hundreds of other candidates, PACs and party committees are competing for the same contributors.

Fortunately for beleaguered fundraisers, there are two shortcuts: team up with other candidates or committees to solicit larger-than-usual donations and split the proceeds, or take in smaller contributions from many donors at once. Joint fundraising committees and earmarked contributions, respectively, let politicians accomplish these goals.

Joint fundraising committees are profiled in our site’s newest section, and explained as follows:

Joint fundraising committees can be created by two or more candidates, PACs or party committees to share the costs of fundraising and split the proceeds. Participants in the JFC can’t take any more money from a donor than they could if the money was given directly, but this vehicle allows a donor to write one very large check.

For example, if three candidates form a JFC, they can ask donors to write a check for $15,600 instead of $5,200, with the proceeds being split equally. Alternatively, politicians who don’t want to share their valuable donors can create a JFC for their campaign committee and their leadership PAC. Or state and national party committees can team up in a JFC to streamline their fundraising efforts. As we’ve written before, thepossible combinations are endless.

Earmarks allow a group to solicit contributions for a specific candidate or committee, essentially acting as a pass-through. This allows organizations with a large member base — EMILY’s List, J Street, and the Club for Growth are some prominent examples — to marshal hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to a single candidate, rather than using a PAC to give a maximum of $10,000. The recipients, presumably, are grateful to both the individual donors and the earmarking organization.

The biggest conduit of all is the fundraising site ActBlue, which operates slightly differently; rather than dunning its own members for contributions, ActBlue allows Democrats and liberal organizations to create their own fundraising pages, making it much easier to gather contributions from a national small donor base. Since its founding in 2004, ActBlue has processed more than $550 million, mostly in contributions of less than $200. Conduits like ActBlue must disclose the names of the donors who earmarked the funds, so they can’t be used to “launder” contributions, but they can be a godsend to candidates who capture the affections of the “netroots” or the tea party.

JFCs and earmarks are popular with Democratic and Republican fundraisers alike, but not in equal measure. Republicans dominate the JFC scene: Through the June 30 FEC deadline, Republican JFCs reported raising $83.7 million, two-and-a-half times the $33.3 million Democrats pulled in. Far and away the biggest recipients of joint contributions are the National Republican Congressional Committee ($13.7 million) and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio ($8.9 million), who are both beneficiaries ofBoehner for Speaker, this cycle’s largest JFC. No Democratic candidate or committee has raised more than $3.5 million from JFCs.

Democrats make up the difference with earmarks, taking in $48.3 million in itemized contributions against barely $7 million for Republicans so far this cycle. And those numbers only count contributions of more than $200, so they understate the Democrats’ advantage; ActBlue alone has reported transmitting about $75 million in small contributions to candidates and committees this cycle.

The biggest recipient of earmarked donations, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has taken in $29.8 million — more than twice what its Republican counterpart raised through JFCs. While a handful of conservative organizations, notably the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth, use earmarks to channel money to anti-establishment Republicans, the largest Republican recipient of earmarked contributions, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell’s unsuccessful primary challenger Matt Bevin, ranks only 13th overall.

Joint fundraising committees aren’t going out of style any time soon. The Supreme Court’s recent McCutcheondecision, which eliminated caps on the amount individuals are allowed to give to all federal candidates and committees combined per cycle, only makes JFCs more attractive. Earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and 13 state Republican parties banded together to create Targeted State Victory, one of the largest JFCs to date; with just one check of nearly $200,000, a donor to Targeted State Victory can exceed the pre-*McCutcheon* maximum for a cycle. ActBlue, meanwhile, just reported raising nearly $20 million in July, its busiest-ever month save October 2012.

Categories: Campaign finance PACs Politicians & Elections

Tags: actblue, andrew mayersohn, boehner for speaker, Club for Growth, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe, emilyslist, J Street, jfcs, John Boehner, joint fundraising committee, matt bevin, mccutcheon,National Republican Congressional Committee, Targeted State Victory

==

*Partisan tilt:

• Solidly Democrat/Liberal
• Leans Democrat/Liberal
• Solidly Republican/Conservative
• Leans Republican/Conservative
• On the fence

This table lists the top donors to joint fundraising committees in the 2013-2014 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Based on data released by the FEC on 07/21/14.

To view data for previous cycles, visit our **Big Picture** section.

==