WASHINGTON - John Kerry took to the Senate floor last year and passionately denounced the prospect of anonymous campaign contributions, labeling them an assault on the political system.
“I can’t think of anything that is less American,’’ declared the Massachusetts Democrat, “than secret money going secretly into campaigns to try to affect the choices of the American people.’’
At the time, many Democrats in the Senate agreed with Kerry. But times have changed in Washington with the advent of so-called super PACs.
Democrats in Congress, including Kerry and other influential senators, have joined their GOP colleagues in embracing this relatively new form of political action committee, which is allowed to accept checks from nonprofit groups and shell corporations whose sources of support are kept secret. Direct donors still must be identified.
Advertisement
This creates what some critics call a “Russian doll’’ system that effectively blocks public disclosure of certain high-dollar political patrons.
The surge in the formation of super PACs - which can solicit contributions of unlimited size - is a response to Supreme Court and Federal Election Commission rulings that kicked away many post-Watergate restrictions on political money. Republican groups, led by American Crossroads, a political organization with ties to GOP adviser and consultant Karl Rove, pioneered the use of unlimited campaign contributions and secret donors during the 2010 election campaign.
Now congressional Democrats are trying to catch up, even though many of them, like Kerry, have spent years supporting legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics.
“We can’t unilaterally disarm,’’ a spokeswoman for Kerry, Jodi Seth, said last week, explaining why Kerry went from decrying the looser rules to helping Democrats raise money for Majority PAC, the Senate Democrats’ super PAC.
In a fund-raising e-mail Kerry wrote for the committee, the senator said as much: “This new organization has one mission: go head-to-head against the big money smear machines that Karl Rove and his cronies built last year to attack Democratic candidates across the country.’’
Advertisement
The “can’t-beat-em, so-join-em’’ attitude disappoints advocates who fight to reduce the influence of special-interest money on elections.
“I think 2012 will be the Wild West of anonymous money in politics,’’ said Paul S. Ryan, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization and transparency advocate. “Scandals will inevitably follow.’’
The number of registered super PACs has grown from about 80 last year to about 135. Federal rules say they are supposed to work independently, not in direct coordination with a candidate. But the lines are fuzzy, because the FEC has determined that candidates can appear at fund-raisers for super PACs that support them.
Sprouting at the rate of about two a week, super PACs are being formed behind presidential candidates, the major political parties, Tea Party groups, special interest lobbying organizations, and activists championing a variety of causes at both the national and state level. Many have patriotic, bland names that hold little clue to their purpose. Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central started his own super PAC that satirizes the trend in generic political branding: “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Inc.’’
By the fall 2012 election, analysts predict, hundreds of these groups will be soliciting jumbo contributions from millionaires and corporations and seeking to influence voters and elected officials with a barrage of advertising.
“It just completely turns the elections over to those who can afford to write huge checks,’’ said David Donnelly, national campaign director for Public Campaign Action Fund, which advocates for publicly financed elections.
Advertisement
These forces were unleashed by the Supreme Court, which ruled in early 2010 that corporations, nonprofits, and labor unions could spend unlimited sums to directly influence the outcome of elections.
There is ample evidence of the results in the current election season. While the Senate has Majority PAC, House Democrats have House Majority PAC - which has been running ads against Republicans, including Representative Charlie Bass of New Hampshire.
The high-profile Massachusetts Senate race is expected to become a magnet for money from such outside groups. Democrats in Massachusetts announced recently that they are forming a super PAC to support Harvard professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren in her bid for the nomination to unseat Senator Scott Brown. Warren campaign spokesman Kyle Sullivan would not say whether she would publicly endorse a super PAC working on her behalf.
“The way the law is now, candidates don’t have a say in whether these groups are active in their races,’’ he said.
For his part, Brown is likely to get support from the Rove-linked American Crossroads. When asked if Brown would accept or denounce support from super PACs for his reelection effort, a Brown campaign spokesman, Colin Reed, declined to comment.
Nearly every presidential candidate is supported by a super PAC, including President Obama. Former aides to the president, who decried anonymous contributions last year, are running the super PAC Priorities USA Action to support his candidacy. Supporters of Mitt Romney have led the way in the GOP primary with Restore Our Future, which raised more than $12 million before July 1.
Advertisement
With both parties joining the fray with gusto, there are virtually no advocates in Congress seeking to stem the tide. Trying to figure out who gave what to whom can be impossible.
For example, House Majority PAC reported receiving $50,000 in April from another super PAC called America’s Families First Action Fund. That super PAC listed a $1 million contribution last October from an organization called America’s Families First Inc, a nonprofit organization that, under federal rules, does not have to report its donors.
Proponents of the system say increased disclosure requirements would hamper political activity by scaring away contributors who don’t want to be identified.
“The general approach that we take is it’s good to have more players in the game than fewer,’’ said Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC and cofounder of the Center for Competitive Politics, a libertarian-leaning organization.
Smith said that taking contributions of unlimited amounts allows candidates to ramp up campaigns quickly, which ultimately leads to more competition.
“When you’ve got to raise money in these little tiny chunks, it takes forever,’’ he said.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York last year cosponsored legislation that would have required organizations spending significant amounts on elections - directly or indirectly through another group - to identify their contributors.
Advertisement
The bill, known as the Disclose Act, passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote. Top Democrats had courted Brown, but he voted against the measure, saying it provided unacceptable exemptions to labor unions and some other groups, including the National Rifle Association.
“A genuine campaign finance reform effort . . . would provide a level playing field to everyone,’’ Brown wrote in a letter to transparency advocates at the time.
An aide to Schumer said he plans to reintroduce the bill this year but concedes opposition has only grown since last year.
The Obama administration has authored a draft executive order that would require companies who have or are seeking government contracts to disclose their political spending. But that order, made public in April, has not been signed by the president. The order is “still undergoing review,’’ White House officials say.
“But broadly speaking, the president is committed to improving our federal contracting system, making it more transparent and more accountable,’’ White House spokesman Adam Abrams said in a statement.
Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, former top Obama aides, formed Priorities USA Action in April. The committee also has an affiliated nonprofit group that does not have to disclose contributors. Burton and Sweeney have said they formed the groups to level the playing field with Republicans.
Priorities USA Action had raised $3.2 million by July 1, campaign finance reports show. American Crossroads reported raising $3.9 million by that date.
Kerry said he and other Democrats have no choice but to continue forming, raising money for, and accepting support from super PACs. Seth, Kerry’s spokeswoman, predicted Republican groups will spend “half a billion dollars to destroy Democrats.’’
Donnelly, the advocate for public campaign financing, said he doesn’t blame Democrats in Washington for forming super PACs and using their support for reelection.
“It’s understandable that everyone avails themselves until there’s a better set of laws,’’ he said.
Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com