Supermen
This is a trend. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, while there are currently about 100 fewer single-candidate super PACs than in the 2018 midterms, they’ve already raised and spent more than $30 million above the 2018 totals—with the home stretch still months away.
The GOP dominates this landscape. In 2018, one in three single-candidate super PACs (or “SCSPs”) were liberal. This year, the proportion is half that size, according to CRP data. The GOP groups have also outspent their Democratic counterparts $144.1 million to $10.6 million.
Watchdogs say these groups create unique concerns about corruption and fairness. And in Thiel’s case, it’s part of a broader attempt to influence the shape of the political playing field itself.
Or as the head of the pro-Vance super PAC, Luke Thompson, recently put it, part of his efforts are “a means of taking on myself, as a super PAC, some of the roles traditionally played by campaigns.”
Down with the sickness
“That is a new and disturbing development,” said Adav Noti, vice president and legal director of the Campaign Legal Center.
“Super PACs are premised on the idea that they operate completely independently from any candidate,” Noti explained, referring to the 2012 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that gave rise to super PACs.
“However, over time, we’re seeing fewer and fewer separations. And when you have a super PAC that’s essentially functioning as the day-to-day operations of the campaign, that is obviously corruptive,” he said.
The quiet part, but out loud
Noti’s group recently filed a legal complaint accusing the Thiel super PAC and Vance campaign of using a secret, public website to unlawfully coordinate.
Thompson recently offered a candid assessment of that allegation.
Citing “concerns of some aspects of campaign finance law,” Thompson said in an interview that he had been “putting a lot of information up on a blog” and “hoping that the campaign would see it.” In doing so, he said, the super PAC was “taking on some of the roles traditionally played by campaigns.”
He also thanked Vance personally. “Credit also to J.D. for being willing to trust me on it,” Thompson said, adding that “this was a professional trust that I really appreciate.”
Thompson has argued that campaign donation limits unfairly favor independently wealthy candidates. But that’s not what’s happening here. Five of the seven highest-grossing SCSPs are supporting well-connected candidates of independent means—Masters, Vance, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), former GOP Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick, and his conqueror, Dr. Mehmet Oz.
“There’s definitely disproportionate involvement of single-candidate super PACs this cycle,” Scherb observed. “These groups tend to have a small number of donors, and they often silence and drown out the voices of small donors and everyday voters. Often these donors want something in return.”
Read the whole story here.
