Four Surefire Tips for Following the Money in Your State

  • submit to reddit

Watch Andy Kroll talk about dark money in 2014 elections on 'Moyers & Company'
Not since the Gilded Age has money dominated American politics as it does today. Untold millions move through political action committees and their steroidal siblings, super PACs, through opaque nonprofit groups run out of PO boxes, much of it intended to keep average voters in the dark about who is influencing their elections. And as the 2014 election year begins, with control of the House of Representatives, the US Senate and 38 governorships at stake, you can expect ever more of this campaign cash — secret and not — flooding into local, state and federal races.

As the “dark money” reporter for Mother Jones, it’s my job to shine as much light on this cash bonanza as I can. I do this using every tool and trick at my disposal: databases, experts, plugged-in sources and good old-fashioned door knocking. Here are four easy-to-use tips for following the money in your state — and throwing some sunlight on the mega-donors trying to sway your elections.

Mine your state’s campaign finance website.

All 50 states maintain a database of some kind detailing basic information about political campaigns — who donated, how much he or she gave, how campaigns raised and spent their money, and so on. If you want to know what individuals or PACs gave to a specific campaign, your state’s campaign finance website has got you covered.

This, for example, is what Michigan’s campaign finance search page looks like:

The state of Michigan's campaign finance search page

This map from the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization will point you to your state’s campaign finance site.

If it’s federal data you want, you can’t go wrong with, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, DC. Everything you could possibly want to know about congressional and presidential campaigns, PACs and super PACs, and dark-money nonprofit groups is just a few clicks away.

Lost? Confused? Find a sherpa.

Warning: State campaign finance websites can be clunky and hard to navigate. (I’m looking at you, Iowa.) Worry not! In many states, there’s a watchdog organization or public interest group that can decipher your state’s campaign data and help you find what it is you’re looking for.

In my own reporting, I’ve leaned heavily on experts such as Rich Robinson at the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Mike McCabe at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Andrew Wheat at Texans for Public Justice. These sherpas, as I like to call them, know your state’s campaign finance data forward and backward, and they’re an invaluable resource when trying to track down hard-to-find information in a hurry.

Screenshot: Wisconsin Democracy Campaign website

While there’s no directory of state-level public interest groups, contacting your state’s chapter of Common Cause, the national good-government group, is a smart place to start. They can also point you in the direction of the campaign finance experts in your state.

Shedding light on dark money.

Your state’s campaign finance records stop being helpful when it comes to “dark money.” That’s the unlimited cash raised and spent by anonymously funded nonprofits. You know the ones, generically named American Crossroads or Priorities USA. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, nonprofits have pumped record sums of dark money into federal elections, more than $300 million of it during the 2012 campaign season alone.

But there are still ways to figure out who’s siphoning secret money into your state. If there is a specific nonprofit you’re looking into, you can access its annual tax filings on the website of the National Center for Charitable Statistics. These tax forms lag significantly — nonprofits could wait until as late as November 2013 to release their 2012 filings — but they offer valuable information about a dark-money group’s past fundraising and spending and who is on its staff and board of directors.

Below I’ve embedded the 2012 tax filing for Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS nonprofit. I’ve highlighted in yellow the most valuable information — total money spent and raised, key personnel and grants given out to other nonprofit groups. also maintains an impressive database of political nonprofit groups that can inform you about which secretive groups are running attack ads on your airwaves.

And last but not least, you can obtain tax filings in-person. By law, nonprofits are required to make available filings for the last three years if you show up at their office and ask for them. It’s your right — and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Show me the file!

Want to know who’s running TV ads in your city? How many ads they’re buying and who they’re targeting? Here’s what you can do about it.

Every broadcaster in the country keeps what’s called a “public file.” That file is available for inspection by any member of the public. Just show up at your local broadcaster and ask to see their public file. Below is the type of record you’ll typically find in a broadcaster’s public file; I’ve highlighted in yellow the relevant information for someone tracking TV ad spending:

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission decided to put a large swath of those advertising records on its website. You can search by TV station here. But for a more detailed database, I recommend using the Sunlight Foundation’s Political Ad Sleuth, which makes TV ad files searchable by date, media market and state.

These resources should be plenty for tracking the money sure to be flooding your state this year, but if you’ve got more questions, you can email me at akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Andy Kroll is Mother Jones' dark money reporter. He is based in the DC bureau. His work has also appeared at The Wall Street Journal, The Detroit News, Salon and, where he's an associate editor. He tweets at @AndyKroll.
  • submit to reddit
  • Anonymous

    Great article. Thank you.

  • Truthspew

    Just a hint, P.O. Boxes resolved to an actual physical post office in most cases. So it’s simply watch a P.O. box and see where it goes.

    Secondly, get in the good graces of an InfoSec person. While the banks might be somewhat secure, the offices of these dark money outfits has a high probability not to be, even if it requires a black bag job.

  • doodlebugrusty

    Virginia only goes to 2005???!!! What good is that?

  • xclvet

    This , of course , is one reason the conmen wanted to gut funding to PBS.

  • xclvet

    Perhaps you need to contact Virginia state officials and ask them.

  • Stewart Moore

    A bipartisan budget deal to avert another government shutdown comes before the Senate this week. The vast majority of House members from both parties approved the two-year budget agreement last week in a 332-to-94 vote. It is being hailed as a breakthrough compromise for Democrats and Republicans. The bill eases across-the-board spending cuts, replacing them with new airline fees and cuts to federal pensions. In a concession by Democrats, it does not extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people, which are set to expire this month. To discuss the deal, we are joined by David Cay Johnston, an investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize while at The New York Times. He is currently a columnist for Tax Analysts and Al Jazeera, as well as a contributing editor at Newsweek.

    AMY GOODMAN: A bipartisan budget deal to avert another government shutdown comes before the Senate this week. The House approved the two-year budget agreement last week in a 332-to-94 vote. The bill eases across-the-board spending cuts, replacing them with new airline fees and cuts to federal pensions. In a concession by Democrats, it does not extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people, which is set to expire this month. Republican Congressmember Paul Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray called the deal a win for both sides.

    REP. PAUL RYAN: I think this agreement is a clear improvement on the status quo. This agreement makes sure that we don’t have a government shutdown scenario in January. It makes sure that we don’t have another government shutdown scenario in October. It makes sure that we don’t lurch from crisis to crisis.

    SEN. PATTY MURRAY: Our deal puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling back sequestration’s harmful cuts to education and medical research and infrastructure investments and defense jobs for the next two years.

    AMY GOODMAN: That was Republican Congressmember Paul Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray.

    The budget deal is being hailed as a breakthrough compromise for Democrats and Republicans, but not everyone supports it. Democratic Congressmember Mark Pocan of Wisconsin said in a statement, quote, “At the end of the day, the bill abandons 1.3 million Americans who desperately need unemployment insurance, and does nothing to promote economic growth or job creation. Furthermore, the legislation is paid for on the backs of the middle class and military families, while not touching the wealthiest amongst us and allowing corporations to continue to benefit from tax loopholes,” he said.

    Well, for more, we go to Rochester, New York, where we’re joined by David Cay Johnston, an investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize when he was at The New York Times. He’s currently a columnist for Tax Analysts and Al Jazeera, as well as a contributing editor at Newsweek.

    David Cay Johnston, thanks so much for joining us. He’s joining us from PBS station WXXI in Rochester. Talk about the deal.

    DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, this deal is a—actually, I think, a big win for the Paul Ryan Republicans. They will avoid the embarrassment, shame and political damage of shutting down the government, and they will obtain this from the—they obtained this from the Democrats without, as Congressman Pocan pointed out in his statement, touching at all the major issues. The corporate loopholes aren’t being closed. The tax-avoidance techniques of billionaires, who can legally live tax-free if they choose to, are not being shut down. The hedge fund and private equity managers will continue to be advantaged. And we’re going to kick 57,000 poor children out of Head Start, which means we’re going to narrow their economic futures and make all of us worse off in the future. We’re cutting a billion-and-a-half dollars from medical research to save lives. Why? Because the very richest people in America, those who have benefited most from being in this market, don’t want to pay for that kind of services. And by the way, being The War and Peace Report, the Pentagon is getting an extra $20 billion out of this deal. We already spend 42 percent of all the money in the world on our military. More money for the Pentagon? Seriously? While we are cutting off unemployment benefits and cutting medical research, reducing pensions for federal workers? This makes absolutely no sense. It will make us worse off.

  • Anonymous

    What I want to know is how to follow the money in a small sized city.

  • Anonymous

    In State of Washington [the WA one], review of law and simple public records searches will disclose the judicial branch demands each judge contribute money to an association and, this money is used to influence the legislature. This is called lobbying.

    The first and, in my opinion, most important issue with this is, a branch of OUR government is using public money to influence the legislator to vote differently than you, I or another might wish.

    The judiciary, by willfully and knowingly seeking to affect the dealings of another branch, except in an open court of record and in the course of declaring the law, can only be called a back door approach, or end-run-around the law to effect what the other branch was charged to accomplish.

    State of Washington has the Public Disclosure Commission [PDC], which keeps records of lobbying, campaign finances and compliance with the states records laws. In spite of the limited funds given it, its employees try to keep things on the up and up.

    We, the actual government (the citizens comprising The State of Washington), enacted the Public Records Act [PRA], a/k/a the Public Disclosure Act [PDA], in 1972, to insure we could monitor OUR government “at all levels.”

    The PRA was codified at chapter 42.17 RCW (remember, the Revised Code of Washington is not the law, but merely a compilation of the laws that have been coded for easy reference).

    Later, the codification, and not the law itself, was broken up so the campaign and business dealings portions were separated from the records portion. The campaign and finance portions of the law remained codified under chapter 42.17 RCW, which the records portions were recodified under chapter 42.56 RCW.

    Unfortunately, this leaves even attorneys laboring under the erroneous conclusion the two are separate, when they are not. For example, until even more rearranging of the codes, the administrative remedies for violations of Act remained, at lease in part, under chapter 42.17 (formerly RCW 42.17.400) Again, only the codification of the law changed and not the law itself.

    In spite of these laws, nowhere in the PDC’s records will you find filings on the judicial branch’s attempts to alter the workings of another branch, the legislative branch.

    If you or I were to receive and spend money related to lobbying, per the laws referenced in chapter 42.17 RCW, we would be required to report our activities, or suffer penalties.

    Our system of laws draws clear lines between each of the three branches of government. One may not usurp the powers of either of the two others. Rather, they are to remain separate and distinct, that they may served as checks upon the other two. In fact, combining two branches has been defined as tyranny. And for good reason.

    Add to all this these “interesting” facts:

    1) We, the government (the citizens comprising The State of Washington) enacted the Public Records Act [PRA], a/k/a the Public Disclosure Act [PRA], in 1972, to insure we could monitor OUR government “at all levels.”

    2) The judges of WA declared themselves exempt from the scrutiny of us, the true government such that not even their administrative records are available to allow us to insure their acts and omissions are proper.

    3) Even as the judiciary claims to be wholly exempt from the PDA, they report both their campaign finances and business dealings, as well as those of their family members, to avoid the ten thousand dollar fines they could suffer if they failed to comply with those portions of the Act.

    [hey, wait, I thought they said the Act didn’t apply to them]

    4) The alleged exemption the judiciary claims arose with the case of Nast versus Michaels, in which King County, Washington, sought to impose a one day turn around on the release of case files. In that case, it was declared the one day turn around was unreasonable, since we had higher, common law right of access to case files.

    Case law has even stated, clearly, denial of access to case files equates to denial of access to the courts.

    The Nast case was the flag ship for excusing the judiciary from accountability to its masters. The dicta of the case grew to become the cited law. However, the Nast case did not address administrative files and to claim its exemption of case law files extended to administrative records also demands the common law right (constitutionally protected right) also extends to them.

  • Anonymous

    If you are in Washington, the state, a simple records request will do. Under the laws codified in chapter 42.56 RCW, local and state agencies MUST respond, at peril of suffering penalties of up to one hundred dollars per day for each record erroneously withheld.

    There there are the laws in chapter 4.92 RCW and chapter 4.96 RCW regarding the individual agents responsible for the breeches of law.

  • Bobby Danger Neil

    we are for Strongly enforcing, broadening (to include workers with
    consumers) our Nation’s Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly Laws. We hope that
    you will join and support our efforts in any way appropriate.