Media Contact
Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111

OpenSecrets Blog

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Solicits Cash for New Democratic Super PAC

Become our fan on Facebook | More | Print

"There can be no greater priority than protecting the Democratic majority in the Senate," Reid wrote in a fund-raising email (see below) sent to his supporters Tuesday. "I'm writing to introduce you to a group solely devoted to leveling the playing field and protecting the Democratic majority in the Senate: Majority PAC."

"In 2010, the GOP's big money advantage helped them take the House -- and nearly cost us the Senate, as well." Reid continued, before encouraging his supporters to donate to Majority PAC. "We can't let that happen again this time."
Reid Majority PAC Solicitation


Majority PAC is a so-called super PAC, which is legally allowed to raise unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions thanks to legal decisions last year including the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' v. Federal Election Commission case.

Money spent by super PACs such as Majority PAC cannot be donated to candidates' own campaign coffers. Instead, the cash they raise is typically used to produce political advertisements that expressly advocate for or against politicians. And as a super PAC, the group is not allowed to coordinate with candidates' campaigns when making these expenditures.


For instance, Majority PAC's leadership includes Rebecca Lambe, a longtime strategist for Reid. Reid's former chief of staff, Susan McCue, is also involved.


Earlier this year, Republican super lawyer and campaign finance reform foe Jim Bopp formed a super PAC -- called Republican Super PAC -- with the hopes of having federal politicians solicit donations for the group, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported.

Majority PAC and its allied organization, House Majority PAC, followed suit by asking the FEC for permission for candidates to solicit donations for super PACs. It's a request that the FEC has not yet either granted or denied.



In the wake of Bopp's move, the two groups sent a letter to all members of Congress admonishing them, because in their view "any federal officeholder or candidate who solicits unlimited contributions for an independent-spending super PAC is violating the federal law that prohibits federal officeholders and candidates from soliciting unlimited contributions in connection with a federal election."

They also sent official comments to the FEC urging the commission to "make clear" that officials -- including candidates, members of Congress and national political party leaders -- may not solicit unlimited individual contributions, nor any corporate and union contributions.

While the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold after its chief sponsors in the Senate, prohibits members of Congress and federal candidates from soliciting unlimited "soft money" donations, they are not prohibited from soliciting limited "hard money" contributions.

In other words, members of Congress, in these groups' view, cannot solicit unlimited contributions for super PACs. But members of Congress may be allowed to solicit limited contributions for super PACs.

MajorityPACLogo.pngIndeed, Reid's fund-raising email on behalf of Majority PAC includes a caveat at the bottom of the message. It states that Reid is "only asking for a donation of up to $5,000 from individuals and federal PACs. He is not asking for funds from corporations, labor unions or other federally prohibited sources."

 "Solicitation restrictions prohibit federal officeholders/candidates from soliciting unlimited money or corporate or union funds," Tara Malloy, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center told OpenSecrets Blog.  

"Reid here is clearly asking only for contributions from individuals within the federal contribution limits," Malloy continued. "Barring sudden action from the FEC, it seems likely that other officeholders will follow suit -- at least insofar as they are only raising 'hard money' for super PACs -- if they haven't already begun such solicitations."

For his part, Bopp has maintained that his new group isn't violating campaign finance law and that getting the FEC's prior approval is an unnecessary step.

The Democratic groups, Bopp told OpenSecrets Blog, are "asking for permission to have party officials raise money for super PACs."

"They just want the FEC to say it's okay," he continued. "I can read the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and it clearly allows that."



Liberal groups -- particularly EMILY's List and Commonsense Ten -- pioneered super PACs during the 2010 election cycle. But conservative operatives more fully embraced the new political committees.


Overall, for every dollar spent by liberal super PACs, conservative super PACs spent about $1.26, according to the Center's research. During the 2010 midterm elections, liberal groups made $28.4 million worth of independent expenditures and conservative super PACs made $35.4 million worth.




During the progressive Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis last weekend, Feingold told a crowd that Democrats who endorse these new efforts are "dancing with the devil."

"We can raise that money with people power," he said. "[We can] raise it without selling our soul."

But at the same conference, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz argued that Democrats needn't shy away from the new groups.

"Progressives shouldn't be unilaterally disarming," she told Talking Points Memo.

For his part, Reid attempted to shepherd new disclosure rules for political ads through the Senate last year, but he couldn't overcome Republican opposition. Twice, the DISCLOSE Act garnered a majority of votes on the Senate floor, but not the 60 votes needed to defeat the Republican-led filibuster it faced.

The legislation would have mandated new transparency measures, including a requirement for nonprofit groups that spend money on political ads to show the names of the top donors in their advertisements. It would have also instituted a rule requiring the leader of an organization, or a group's largest contributor, to "stand by the ad" and give the familiar disclaimer that candidates must include in their advertisements: "My name is so-and-so, and I approve this message."



Comments (Comment Guidelines)