INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES| 245BIG SPENDERS IN THE 2012 ELECTION: 527 ORGANIZATIONS
TABLETABLE » »^ 5.18.2
This table shows the amount of money spent on electioneering by the top ten 527 organiza-
tions. Does this information support claims of interest groups having a disproportionate
infl uence over election outcomes, especially in light of the high costs of campaigning described
in Chapter 7?
ORGANIZATION GENERALLY SUPPORTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES
ActBlue Democrats $11,648,124
College Republican National Committee Republicans $9,172,430
Citizens United Republicans $8,120,525
EMILY’s List Democrats $7,716,027
Service Employees International Union Democrats $6,191,200
Plumbers/Pipefi tters Union Democrats $4,700,542
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Democrats $3,792,865
GOPAC Republicans $3,303,261
New Conservative Coalition Republicans $3,030,479
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Democrats $2,858,540
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, “527 Committees: Top Fifty Federally Focused Organizations,” available at
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.php. Based on data released by the Federal Election Commission on November
2, 2012 (accessed 11/2/12).
to candidates are capped at $5,000 per candidate, and their contributions to party
committees are also strictly limited.
Two new options for electioneering for interest groups emerged in the 2010
election: “Super PACs” and 501(c)(4) organizations. The former was a consequence
of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that authorized unlimited indepen-
dent spending by corporations and labor unions in federal elections. Many groups
set up new political action committees to take advantage of these new rules—
the “super” label refl ects the fact that these groups take in and spend much more
money than the typical PAC. However, many businesses prefer that their contribu-
tions remain secret because they are afraid of angering shareholders and custom-
ers who might disagree with their political spending; thus, they donate through
501(c)(4) groups, which do not have to disclose their donors.
The data highlight a sharp diff erence in electioneering strategies between the
very few large, well-funded interest groups and everyone else. A few 527s, Super
PACs, 501(c)(4)s, and PACs have the money to deploy massive advertising and mobi-
lizing eff orts for a candidate or issue they like or against one they don’t. There are
also some mass associations that can persuade large numbers of members to work
and vote for candidates the group supports or against candidates the group wants to
defeat. But these strategies are not available to the vast majority of interest groups,
which simply don’t have the resources. They give modest help to candidates who
are sympathetic to the group’s goals in the hope that once elected, the offi ceholder
will remember their contribution when the group asks for a meeting.