Koch Brothers Break New Ground in Dark Money

The billionaires’ latest group could be the first in a new class of campaign finance weapons.

David Koch, executive vice president of Koch Industries, attends a meeting of the Economic Club of New York, Monday, April 11, 2011. 
National Journal
Alex Seitz Wald
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Alex Seitz-Wald
Sept. 13, 2013, 9:57 a.m.

The Koch broth­ers are noth­ing if not in­nov­at­ors in the murky world of cam­paign fin­ance, and their latest ven­ture — a secret fund that quietly dis­trib­uted $250 mil­lion to con­ser­vat­ive groups dur­ing the 2012 elec­tion, as by re­vealed by Politico yes­ter­day — is no ex­cep­tion. The group ex­plores near-vir­gin ter­rit­ory in the tax code as the first in what could be a new class of weapons in the secret money arms race.

On its face, Free­dom Part­ners looks like any of the oth­er dark-money groups that have pro­lif­er­ated in re­cent years. Those tax-ex­empt “so­cial wel­fare” or­gan­iz­a­tions, called 501(c)(4)s for their tax code des­ig­na­tion, can raise un­lim­ited amounts of money without dis­clos­ing their donors, and can spend just shy of half of it on polit­ics.

But un­like those groups, Free­dom Part­ners is or­gan­ized un­der a dif­fer­ent sec­tion of the tax code, 501(c)(6), which is typ­ic­ally re­served for cham­bers of com­merce and trade groups like the Amer­ic­an Bar As­so­ci­ation and the Na­tion­al Beer Whole­salers As­so­ci­ation. Polit­ic­al activ­ity from these groups is noth­ing new — the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce was one of the biggest spend­ers in the 2010 and 2012 elec­tions — but Free­dom Part­ners is plainly not a busi­ness as­so­ci­ation in the tra­di­tion­al sense; its roughly 200 donors are united by a com­mon ideo­logy, rather than a com­mon in­dustry.

“I haven’t seen a situ­ation like this, and we watch that area pretty closely,” said Jim Clarke, the seni­or vice pres­id­ent of pub­lic policy at the So­ci­ety of As­so­ci­ation Ex­ec­ut­ives, a sort of trade as­so­ci­ation of trade as­so­ci­ations. “I can safety say, an­ec­dot­ally at least, that this would be new.”

Why Free­dom Part­ners would chose 501(c)(6) status over the more com­mon 501(c)(4) is a bit of a mys­tery be­cause the rules gov­ern­ing polit­ic­al activ­ity are es­sen­tially the same for both, but ex­perts spec­u­late there may be some ad­vant­ages in the choice.

Douglas Var­ley, a pro­fess­or at Geor­getown Law and a law­yer at Cap­lin & Drys­dale who ad­vises non­profit groups, said he hasn’t seen an or­gan­iz­a­tion quite like this be­fore. “I’m sur­prised that it’s a (c)(6) from a pointy-headed law­yer’s per­spect­ive, but I’m not that sur­prised from a real­ist polit­ic­al per­spect­ive,” he said.

One ad­vant­age of the status, Var­ley ex­plained, is that com­pan­ies could write off dir­ect con­tri­bu­tions to the group as busi­ness ex­penses more eas­ily. It’s pos­sible to do that with a more tra­di­tion­al 501(c)(4) group, but harder to jus­ti­fy, while con­tri­bu­tions to busi­ness as­so­ci­ations are routine.

In­deed, when asked why his group chose the par­tic­u­lar sec­tion of the tax code it did, Free­dom Part­ners spokes­per­son James Dav­is told Na­tion­al Journ­al, “The (c)(6) struc­ture al­lows us to work with busi­nesses — both large and small — across a vari­ety of in­dus­tries to ad­vance our mem­ber’s busi­ness in­terests of pro­mot­ing the prin­ciples of a free mar­ket and a free so­ci­ety.”

Mean­while, with an eye on the in­creas­ing scru­tiny dir­ec­ted at (501(c)(4)s, Free­dom Part­ners may have de­cided it was safer to move in­to a new reg­u­lat­ory space. Rep. Chris Van Hol­len, D-Md., re­cently sued the IRS to try to force it to crack down on (c)(4)s, while some state at­tor­neys gen­er­al, such as New York’s Eric Schnei­der­m­an, have been try­ing to make the groups dis­close their donors. Then there’s all the bad press that the dark-money groups sus­tained dur­ing the 2012 cam­paign, and the re­newed scru­tiny dur­ing this year’s IRS scan­dal, which re­volved around al­leg­a­tions that the tax agency im­prop­erly tar­geted tea-party 501(c)(4) groups.

With all the heat on those groups, Viveca Novak of the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics said she’s heard some polit­ic­al strategists say they’ve been look­ing at sec­tion 501(c)(6) as a po­ten­tial refuge. “Busi­ness as­so­ci­ations may not fall with­in the char­it­able trust jur­is­dic­tion of state at­tor­neys gen­er­al, so the ar­range­ment could help sty­mie states’ ef­forts to shed some light on who is be­hind the or­gan­iz­a­tions,” Novak wrote on the cam­paign fin­ance watch­dog’s blog.

Polit­ic­ally, it would also be much harder for states to reg­u­late these kinds of groups, Var­ley poin­ted out, be­cause any new policy on 501(c)(6)s would af­fect not just ideo­lo­gic­al dark-money group, but all the quo­tidi­an — and power­ful — in­dustry groups in a state, as well as loc­al cham­bers of com­merce.

There’s noth­ing il­leg­al or un­der­han­ded about us­ing the des­ig­na­tion this way, though any 501(c)(6) or­gan­iz­a­tion does have to meet cer­tain re­quire­ments to be a con­sidered a busi­ness league. Ap­par­ently Free­dom Part­ners has sat­is­fied them. Dav­is said the IRS of­fi­cially re­cog­nized his group in Janu­ary of last year after it was in es­tab­lished the pre­vi­ous Novem­ber.

And it’s not en­tirely without pre­ced­ent. The con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­ans for Job Se­cur­ity set up shop back in 1997 as a 501(c)(6). But oth­er­wise, Free­dom Part­ners ap­pears to be in un­charted wa­ters. “We’ve seen sig­ni­fic­ant amounts of money spent through (c)(6)s, but they’ve been through well-es­tab­lished, more well-known trade or­gan­iz­a­tions like the Cham­ber of Com­merce,” said Paul S. Ry­an of the Cam­paign Leg­al Cen­ter.

Mar­cus Owens, who for 10 years ran the IRS of­fice that over­sees tax-ex­empt or­gan­iz­a­tions, said that while he didn’t see an ob­vi­ous be­ne­fit to the new status, it might just serve to com­ple­ment oth­er groups in the Koch Broth­ers net­work. They already have their hands in 501(c)(3)s, such as the Amer­ic­an Le­gis­lat­ive Ex­change Coun­cil, and 501(c)(4)s, such as Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity, plus their com­pany’s PAC, so a 501(c)(6) is the next lo­gic­al place to ex­pand to cre­ate a new giv­ing op­tion for donors.

“It strikes me as maybe the Koch Broth­ers are try­ing for one of each kind of or­gan­iz­a­tion. Maybe next they’ll set up a labor uni­on!” Owens quipped. Call it the cam­paign fin­ance ver­sion of EGOT­ing.

What We're Following See More »
SANS PROOF
NRA Chief: Leftist Protesters Are Paid
1 days ago
UPDATE
NEW TRAVEL BAN COMING SOON
Trump Still on Campaign Rhetoric
1 days ago
UPDATE
“WE’RE CHANGING IT”
Trump Rails On Obamacare
1 days ago
UPDATE

After spending a few minutes re-litigating the Democratic primary, Donald Trump turned his focus to Obamacare. “I inherited a mess, believe me. We also inherited a failed healthcare law that threatens our medical system with absolute and total catastrophe” he said. “I’ve been watching and nobody says it, but Obamacare doesn’t work.” He finished, "so we're going to repeal and replace Obamacare."

FAKE NEWS
Trump Goes After The Media
1 days ago
UPDATE

Donald Trump lobbed his first attack at the “dishonest media” about a minute into his speech, saying that the media would not appropriately cover the standing ovation that he received. “We are fighting the fake news,” he said, before doubling down on his previous claim that the press is “the enemy of the people." However, he made a distinction, saying that he doesn't think all media is the enemy, just the "fake news."

FBI TURNED DOWN REQUEST
Report: Trump Asked FBI to Deny Russia Stories
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN. But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login