Anonymous group launches website about group backed by anonymous donors

As I mentioned in yesterday’s Lowdown post, on Wednesday flyers began showing up around the Capitol featuring a mock “WANTED” poster for Christian LeFer, a “key player” in the infamous dark money group American Tradition Partnership.

The flyers directed readers to “see if your legislator is implicated” in alleged “illegal campaign coordination” by visiting www.ATPexposed.org.

Without rehashing the whole URL snafu, which you can read about here, suffice it to say the anonymous leafleters meant to direct people to www.ATPexposed.COM.

If you go to ATPExposed.com you’ll find three posts asserting ATP illegally coordinated legislative campaigns “with extreme right-wing candidates.”

Many of the links on the apparently brand-new website are not yet populated with content, but under the heading “incriminating evidence” you’ll find an article that attempts to connect the infamous Senate GOP leadership emails I wrote about last month with ATP campaign activities.

A post titled “ARVIS and RINOpoacher” draws a connection between a now-defunct website domain once registered to LeFler and the “Average Republican Vote Index Score,” or "ARVIS,” chart contained in the documents revealed by the Great Falls Tribune last month.

ARVIS is a score developed by the Republican Legislative Leadership Committee and applied to each legislative district. The number indicates how likely voters in that district are to elect a Republican candidate in the general election. The ARVIS number is based primarily on the voting history of the district in presidential elections since most voters vote their own party in presidential races. (Democrats have a similar number for determining their party’s strength in a district called the “DPQ,” which stands for “Democratic Performance Quotient.)

An ARVIS number 50 or more means there is a greater than 50 percent chance that voters will elect a Republican in that legislative district in the general election. Republicans have used the ARVIS rating system to identify "safe Republican," "lean Republican," "lean Democrat" and "safe Democratic" districts. During election cycles the party uses the ARVIS information to determine how to allocate financial resources in those races that might be competitive in a general election.

This undated spreadsheet was contained in the packet of emails between Senate President Jeff Essmann, Sen. Majority Leader Art Wittich, Sen. Majority Whip Frederick "Eric" Moore, Sen. Dave Lewis, and Sen. Ed Walker.

The documents showed how key members of the Senate Republican caucus, including  the current leadership team, began plotting their power play as early as September of last year.

Priest told me in an interview that the "Senate Policy Committee" is the name members of the current leadership team uses to refer to themselves and their supporters in the Senate GOP caucus.

According to ATPExposed.com:

The two columns on the left contain the names of the radicals that pledged or planned to pledge their votes to the Essman and Wittich hardline ticket. The two columns on the right contain the names of the legislators that refused to adopt this extremist agenda. The top two rows contain safe Republican seats. The bottom two rows contain swing and liberal seats.

Reagan Republicans in safe conservative seats didn’t pledge themselves to the hardline ticket should look at Bruce Tutvedt as a cautionary tale. ATP and their shell groups backed out of state carpetbagger Rollan Roberts II. Roberts had only been in Montana for two years before he took on lifetime Flathead resident Tutvedt.

So did Senate GOP leaders use their party’s internal ARVIS rating system to identify which incumbent Republicans who did not support the Essmann/Wittich ticket could be defeated in a primary? Was that information shared with dark money groups?

Last month I asked Priest, Wittich and Essmann about the apparent connection between the ARVIS list and GOP legislators who faced primary challenges -- and in some cases were targeted by dark money spending. The three lawmakers said the ARVIS list referred to the general election cycle and had nothing to do with primaries.

Essmann said he did not coordinate with any third-party groups on any Republican primary campaigns.

Wittich said he “didn’t think” he coordinated with any third party groups.

“Did we participate in primaries? I think I was asked about various primaries but I don’t know about third party groups getting involved with it,” Wittich said.

Wittich said supported Kalispell Republican Sen. Bruce Tutvedt’s opponent but he said he did not coordinate with ATP.

It’s worth noting that Wittich’s law firm is listed with the Montana Secretary of State’s office as Western Tradition Partnership’s (ATP’s earlier incarnation) registered agent. According to records filed at the Montana Commissioner of Political practices, WTP paid Wittich’s firm at least $9,000 in 2010. Wittich said his firm represented WTP on one case in 2010.

“When that case began in 2010 (WTP) was an out of state company and they needed a registered agent in Montana,” Wittich said.

ATPExposed.com promises to “reveal more of ATP’s agenda each week,” but there are no clues as to who is running the site.

Some simple Google sleuthing indicates whoever is running ATPExposed.com is tied to the anonymous Democrat blog MTStreetfighter.com. A cached version of the ATPExposed.com test page dated Jan. 23 -- before the sight was launched -- displays comments on the right hand side of the blog. Those same comments appeared here and here on the MTStreetfighter.com blog from posts dating back to Jan. 16 and and Jan. 17. Both sights also use the same WordPress blog template.

Lots of anonymity in Montana politics these days. Is this what the U.S. Supreme Court had in mind when they ruled on Citizens United? Is this the future of politics in America?

Watchdog groups call on IRS to investigate ATP

Two campaign finance watchdog groups are calling on the IRS to investigate American Tradition Partnership, the “dark money” group at the center of a ProPublica/Frontline investigation last fall.

According to the letter from the watchdog groups:

“…the apparently false information included misrepresentations made to the IRS by WRP in urging expedited approval of its application and misrepresentations in its application to the IRS, asserting that it would not participate or intervene in elections.”

According to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer:

“This is yet another case where a group apparently has claimed status as a section 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization in order to keep secret from the American people the donors financing its campaign activities. According to news reports published by ProPublica and Frontline, American Tradition Partnership (ATP) appears to have knowingly misled the IRS about its campaign activities and knowingly submitted false information to the IRS to obtain its tax-exempt status on an expedited basis.”

The groups are calling on the IRS to investigate and “take appropriate action against ATP.”

According to the letter submitted to the IRS Tuesday, WTP submitted its Form 1024, Application for Recognition of Exemption under Section 501(a), to the IRS on July 21, 2008.

A report by ProPublica and Frontline found that WTP submitted a letter to the IRS on September 29, 2008, while their IRS application was still pending, requesting that the IRS expedite processing of its application. According to the report, the request for expedition stated that Jacob Jabs, who was described as the organization’s “primary donor,” had promised to make a $300,000 donation to the group but only if WTP received recognition from the IRS for tax-exempt status by September 29, 2008. Id.

The letter from the watchdog groups continued:

The letter further said, however, that Jabs had extended his deadline, and said he “will give us the grant if we receive our tax exempt status by October 15, 2008.  If we have not received our tax exempt status by this date, Mr. Jabs has assured us that he will no longer contribute said amount and instead will direct his donation to other organizations.”

According to the ProPublica/Frontline report, the IRS responded to WTP the next day, Sept. 30, 2008, and said that the request for expedited consideration would be granted.  Tax-exempt status as a section 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization was granted to WTP two days later on Oct. 2, 2008.

A subsequent  ProPublica and Frontline report on Oct. 30 2012, said Jabs later said “he had never pledged money to the group, and never even been in contract with them until press stories appeared naming him.” 

The ProPublica/Frontline story states:

“I think they just grabbed my name out of a hat to forward their agenda,” Jabs told us.  “I know nothing about the group, never heard of them, never have heard of them until the last few days, and I did not, absolutely did not, commit $300,000 to start this company.” (Jabs also spoke with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, again denying any connection to the group.)

A subsequent release of WTP’s bank records as a result of state court litigation in Montana “show[ed] no money came in from the man WTP claimed as its primary donor when it asked the IRS to expedite the approval of its application,” ProPublica/Frontline reported.

According to the letter:

Assuming the ProPublica/Frontline reports are correct, the IRS agreed to expedited processing of WTP’s application for tax-exempt status that resulted in its approval, based on apparent material fraudulent information that WTP provided to the IRS and that WTP had to know was false.

On these grounds alone, the section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status of WTP should be revoked and the IRS should consider what, if any, other actions it should take against WTP.  The IRS should also forward any relevant information in this case to the Department of Justice so the Department can determine what, if any, action it should take against WTP for apparently submitting material false information to a federal agency in order to obtain action by the agency.

You can read the entire press release and the letter here.

Money in politics, then and now

While rummaging around in the archives at the Montana Historical Society yesterday I came across a Nov. 1978 headline in the Great Falls Tribune that caught my attention:

The 1978 headline juxtaposed with what I watched last night on Montana PBS was a stark reminder of money’s dramatic influence our politics today .

If you didn’t watch the Frontline/Marketplace special “Big Sky, Big Money,” do yourself a favor and do it now. You can see first hand how third party groups, SuperPACs, and shadowy tax-exempt 501(c)(4) “dark money” groups are trying to influence the outcomes our elections here in Montana while hiding from public view the identity of those trying to influence us. It’s a sobering exposé of  post-Citizens United Montana and the group whose lawsuit reaffirmed the controversial Supreme Court decision and tossed out our 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act in the process.  Watch it here or go to Frontline’s excellent website for more interactive features about money in politics:

Watch Big Sky, Big Money on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Montana State University political science professor David Parker is featured in the program. Parker says outside groups spent $6.8 million on the Montana Senate race through June alone.

According to Great Falls Tribune Washington bureau reporter Malia Rulon, during the first three weeks of October, Montanans were subjected to 25,211 political ads about the race between Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and his Republican challenger, Rep. Denny Rehberg. During that three-week period, groups spent $3.27 million.

So in 1978 Democrat Max Baucus’ and Republican Larry Williams’ campaigns combined spent less than $1 million on the Senate race and in 2012 the campaigns and third-party groups, many of whom are funded by secret donors and corporations, spent more than three times as much in a three-week period alone.

“2012 will go down as a record-pulverizing year for political advertising,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

The future of American politics post-Citizens United is here folks. Like what you see?