Post by goldenvalley on Jul 15, 2022 18:33:39 GMT
Jul 15, 2022 18:16:43 GMT LFC said:
Just another corruption scandal that nobody pays attention to anymore. Thanks for this, John Roberts. You may not have built this but you justified and legalized it.Celebrity doctor and Republican Senate candidate Mehmet Oz has plenty of personal wealth to help fund his upstart campaign. And while the TV doctor might be a political neophyte, his fundraising operation has incorporated a sophisticated technique—what one expert described as “legalized money laundering.”
Like so many aspects of today’s campaign finance system, it traces back a decade—to the Supreme Court’s watershed Citizens United decision.
The Oz setup involves a somewhat confusing super PAC, which has a “dark money” nonprofit twin. The super PAC has raised more than $4 million, including a donation from the nonprofit.
That pairing was made possible thanks to Citizens United, which gave rise to super PACs—political committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money.
Brett Kappel, campaign finance specialist at Harmon Curran, explained the arrangement.
“The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations, including nonprofit organizations, to make unlimited contributions to Super PACs, which then could spend those funds on independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates,” Kappel said.
But where super PACs have to disclose their donor information, nonprofit organizations don’t. That gives donors a layer of anonymity—instead of giving to the super PAC, give to a nonprofit that gives to the super PAC. The nickname “dark money” is a pejorative reference to that anonymity.
“Citizens United essentially created a system of legalized money laundering, which allows wealthy donors to funnel unlimited amounts of money through nonprofit organizations to Super PACs to support candidates of their choosing without ever having to reveal their identities,” Kappel said.
The super PAC backing Oz is called American Leadership Action. Its dark money twin is called American Leadership Policy.
According to federal election reports, the American Leadership Action super PAC has raised more than $4 million and spent nearly $3.5 million supporting Oz through the primary, which he won last month after a recount.
The group has reported two donations from limited liability corporations. But it also received a $66,000 contribution from the nonprofit twin.
Those names aren’t a coincidence; it’s a team effort.
Like so many aspects of today’s campaign finance system, it traces back a decade—to the Supreme Court’s watershed Citizens United decision.
The Oz setup involves a somewhat confusing super PAC, which has a “dark money” nonprofit twin. The super PAC has raised more than $4 million, including a donation from the nonprofit.
That pairing was made possible thanks to Citizens United, which gave rise to super PACs—political committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money.
Brett Kappel, campaign finance specialist at Harmon Curran, explained the arrangement.
“The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations, including nonprofit organizations, to make unlimited contributions to Super PACs, which then could spend those funds on independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates,” Kappel said.
But where super PACs have to disclose their donor information, nonprofit organizations don’t. That gives donors a layer of anonymity—instead of giving to the super PAC, give to a nonprofit that gives to the super PAC. The nickname “dark money” is a pejorative reference to that anonymity.
“Citizens United essentially created a system of legalized money laundering, which allows wealthy donors to funnel unlimited amounts of money through nonprofit organizations to Super PACs to support candidates of their choosing without ever having to reveal their identities,” Kappel said.
The super PAC backing Oz is called American Leadership Action. Its dark money twin is called American Leadership Policy.
According to federal election reports, the American Leadership Action super PAC has raised more than $4 million and spent nearly $3.5 million supporting Oz through the primary, which he won last month after a recount.
The group has reported two donations from limited liability corporations. But it also received a $66,000 contribution from the nonprofit twin.
Those names aren’t a coincidence; it’s a team effort.
So where is Oz's money coming from?
Oz can’t coordinate with the super PAC on fundraising. But his in-laws are its top donors.
The distaff branch of the Oz household has ties to two wealthy and influential mid-Atlantic families: The Asplundhs and the DuPonts, both of whom have given to the super PAC.
The Ozes have stakes in the multibillion-dollar Asplundh Tree Experts, holding between $11.55 million and $52.1 million, according to Oz’s candidate disclosures—between 10 to 50 percent of Oz’s total net worth. (The forms only provide dollar amounts in wide ranges.)
And the biggest super PAC donor is Oz’s father-in-law, Dr. Gerald LeMole, who has already donated more than $1.5 million, according to campaign filings.
Oz also registered his campaign at Dr. LeMole’s strip mall office address. And in 2020 he and his wife took out an eight-year, eleven-month mortgage for between $1 million and $5 million to purchase a house from his in-laws, along with a promissory note of up to $250,000. He lists that home on his voter registration.
The sister of Oz’s wife, Lisa Oz, married into the DuPont dynasty. Benjamin DuPont has so far given $70,000 to the Oz super PAC.
But we’ll likely never know whether those two wealthy East Coast families are also fueling funding the super PAC’s nonprofit twin. The group does not have to disclose its donors.
The distaff branch of the Oz household has ties to two wealthy and influential mid-Atlantic families: The Asplundhs and the DuPonts, both of whom have given to the super PAC.
The Ozes have stakes in the multibillion-dollar Asplundh Tree Experts, holding between $11.55 million and $52.1 million, according to Oz’s candidate disclosures—between 10 to 50 percent of Oz’s total net worth. (The forms only provide dollar amounts in wide ranges.)
And the biggest super PAC donor is Oz’s father-in-law, Dr. Gerald LeMole, who has already donated more than $1.5 million, according to campaign filings.
Oz also registered his campaign at Dr. LeMole’s strip mall office address. And in 2020 he and his wife took out an eight-year, eleven-month mortgage for between $1 million and $5 million to purchase a house from his in-laws, along with a promissory note of up to $250,000. He lists that home on his voter registration.
The sister of Oz’s wife, Lisa Oz, married into the DuPont dynasty. Benjamin DuPont has so far given $70,000 to the Oz super PAC.
But we’ll likely never know whether those two wealthy East Coast families are also fueling funding the super PAC’s nonprofit twin. The group does not have to disclose its donors.
Prosecutors said Bera conducted an elaborate operation of soliciting donations from friends and family for his son’s first two congressional campaigns in 2010 and 2012. Each of those individual donations was within the legal maximum of primary and general election donations, a total of $5,000 in 2012. But the elder Bera either quietly gave those donors the money to make their donations or ultimately repaid them after the contributions were made.
In all, prosecutors said they were able to track at least $260,000 in illegal contributions funneled through donors but secretly paid by the elder Bera through multiple bank accounts used to further cover his tracks.
The 2010 incidents of money laundering did not end up helping Ami Bera win, as the Sacramento County physician lost a close race to former U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). But in the 2012 rematch, the second election cycle in which money was illegally funneled into Bera’s campaign, the Democrat defeated Lungren by about 9,000 votes.
In all, prosecutors said they were able to track at least $260,000 in illegal contributions funneled through donors but secretly paid by the elder Bera through multiple bank accounts used to further cover his tracks.
The 2010 incidents of money laundering did not end up helping Ami Bera win, as the Sacramento County physician lost a close race to former U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). But in the 2012 rematch, the second election cycle in which money was illegally funneled into Bera’s campaign, the Democrat defeated Lungren by about 9,000 votes.
