Journalism in the Public Interest

Big Corporations Put Up Seed Funding for Republican Dark Money Group

IRS files show that some of the biggest companies in the country provided more than a million dollars a decade ago to launch a Republican dark money group.


A screenshot from a State Government Leadership Foundation ad targeting President Obama's energy policies.

Some of the nation’s biggest corporations donated more than a million dollars to launch a Republican nonprofit that went on to play a key role in recent political fights.

Like the nonprofit groups that poured money into last year’s elections, the decade-old State Government Leadership Foundation has been able to keep the identities of its funders secret. Until now.

A records request by ProPublica to the IRS turned up a list of the original funders of the group: Exxon, Pfizer, Time Warner, and other corporations put up at least 85 percent of the $1.3 million the foundation raised in the first year and a half of its existence, starting in 2003.

The donor list is stamped “not for public disclosure,” and was submitted to the IRS as part of the foundation’s application for recognition of tax-exempt status. If approved, such applications are public records.

The foundation and other similar nonprofits are allowed to take anonymous and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations. That’s because they are classified as “social welfare” nonprofits, which are supposed to benefit the community at large, and not just one group or political party.

Last year, we reported how the State Government Leadership Foundation paid for Republican redistricting consultants to draw new congressional district maps in North Carolina. The resulting gerrymander helped flip the state’s congressional delegation to Republicans.

In recent years, the foundation has also funded TV ads targeting Democrats during the 2011 Wisconsin showdown over collective bargaining rights; attacking President Obama in Virginia over his energy policy; and accusing teachers unions of “destroying our children’s future.”

The foundation also gave $1.25 million in 2011 to the Indiana Opportunity Fund, a state-level nonprofit that ran anti-union ads featuring Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels. (That group was founded by attorney Jim Bopp, who has long fought against campaign finance regulation.)

The foundation’s single-biggest early donor was the now-defunct mortgage lender Ameriquest, which gave more than $260,000. (We contacted a number of the companies on the list; they did not respond to requests for comment.) Corporate trade associations including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Edison Electric Institute, and the American Tort Reform Association also pitched in, each giving between $50,000 and $100,000.

The foundation’s affiliated organization, the Republican State Leadership Committee, focuses on winning state-level elections for the GOP and also gets corporate money, including from tobacco and insurance giants.  As an explicitly political organization, the committee has to disclose its donors.

By contrast, the recent funders of the foundation, which took in $2.5 million in 2011 including a single donation of $1 million, are still secret.

The foundation applied for IRS recognition as a social welfare group in late 2003 but was initially rejected. The IRS concluded the foundation was “a partisan organization” that “operated primarily for the benefit of a select group” – the GOP. Social welfare groups, the IRS’ rejection letter noted, must promote the “general welfare of the whole community” — not a particular group.

The foundation’s lawyers from the firm Arent Fox fired back in an appeal, arguing that the foundation was not a partisan outfit.

The foundation, according to the 2005 appeal, “was created to promote public debate” about issues including pharmaceuticals, securities regulation, and asbestos litigation.

“It may be useful to describe what the SGLF is not,” the appeal says. “The SGLF:

• Is not affiliated with the Republican Party in any way;

• Does not meet with or coordinate its activities with the Republican Party;

• Does not make contributions to, or accept contributions from, the Republican Party;

• Does not participate in political campaigns, elections or publish electioneering messages on behalf of any candidate or party;

• Does not invite Representatives of the Republican Party to speak at its events, and

• Does not participate in the Republican Party platform, does not recruit or train Republican candidates, does not fundraise for Republican candidates, and does not coordinate its issue selection or policy positions with the Republican Party.

In 2007, more than three years after the foundation’s application, the IRS ultimately recognized it as a tax-exempt social welfare group.

But the group’s protestations that it has nothing to do with the GOP seems at odds with its recent activities. Besides running ads attacking Democrats, the foundation was involved in redistricting in several states to, as the foundation put it in a letter to Republican legislators, draw “legislative lines that we will have to defend in 2012 and beyond.”

Foundation spokesperson Jill Bader told ProPublica that since its creation the foundation’s “activities have evolved in some ways from those that were originally contemplated and conducted by the organization.”

Bader continued: “SGLF’s present activities are in strict compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and all future SGLF activities will be in strict compliance as well.”

what about george soros funding of leftist non profit Tides foundation and subsidiaries ?


Never heard of the Tides Foundation, so I checked them out. Thanks for the tip. Looks like they into very good projects, unlike trying to promote gerrymandering of Congressional districts. Think I’ll contribute too.

Interesting.  Tell us which corporations contributed to Rove’s organization that failed to fulfill its reported goal in the 2012 national election.  Thanks.

SGLF’s identity and activity would surprise anyone why ???  Sly money from big corporations is unfortunately the norm.  Gerrymandering is almost an art form these days.

Has ProPublica filed requests with the IRS for all similar Democrat organizations?  Where are the stories about those organizations and their funding sources?

@Patrick—my colleague Kim Barker has posted similar files for a wide range of nonprofits. Find them here:
(click Liberal groups)

Pro Publica yet another article beating the same drum. I can not fathom that many corporations are not hedging their bets on both sides Democrat and Republican. In fact they do. As long as Congress both sides pass legislation that makes this not tasty then it will continue. Funny thing is the Senate and House the last 4 years owned primarily by the Democrats did not, one should ask why. Could the problem be the Democrats had no real motivation to do so. Corporatocracy in play. The Dems and Republicans wear the same colors, dark.

Walter D. Shutter, Jr.

Feb. 14, 2013, 4:40 p.m.

@Justin Elliott. 

Thanks for the link.  I clicked on both Liberal and Conservative non-profit advocacy groups and totaled up the numbers.  Here they are:
Leaning Liberal: 47
Leaning Conservative: 57
Numbers don’t lie.  In order to level the playing field re: non-profit advocacy groups, the Govt. must either increase the number of Leaning Liberal groups by 10 or decrease the number of Conservative Leaning groups the same number.
Keep up the good work.

Bruce Fernandes

Feb. 14, 2013, 4:56 p.m.

So what?  The apes and criminals that run unions in this country put their money up and have used their power to bankrupt virtually every municipality in the USA by putting upon the taxpayers to offer pensions beyond anything their private sector equivalents will ever see.

The big scism to come is when private sector union workers will no longer support their public sector bretheren because they have begun to realize they are having to pay for pensions far above anything akin to reality.

pgillenw, I suspect—I’m not in a position to accuse or prove—that the difference here is in approach.  There is definitely a significant gap between supporting candidates who might support your position (which, today, is anybody, for the right price)—something they claim not to do at all, or at least didn’t do when asked the question—and spending money on marketing campaigns to sway public opinion into pressuring an elected official.

Also, when that many large companies secretly get behind something, it’s a conspiracy in the most classical and pure sense, shadowy elites trying to manipulate us.  It’s a drum that deserves beating, considering that any whiff of “conspiracy” sends people packing and makes it hard for them to listen.

Just as a note on the list:  You’ll find a lot of listings of “Unitemized Donors”.  Never fear; Google is your friend.  Just search for the address, city, state.

Like when you Google “p.o. box 550 cleveland, tn” (include the zip if you’d like), you come up with “Check Into Cash”.

lolll…while it is not “proof positive” that they’re the correct entity, you might suspect that such an entity would indeed be interested in more Republican power - and so fewer regulations that might inhibit their ability to transform the checks of the American people into their cash without regard for “the general Welfare” of the American people.

Just another reason to amend the corporate chartering process and (once again) require any chartered corporation to perform a public good as a requirement of receiving a charter from we the people.

I dunno why I suspect that some or all of those “Unitemized Donors” way don’t want the American people to know their identities.

FYI—The unitemized donors (according to a different section of the SGLF’s exchange with the IRS) are not named because the size of their donations fell under a certain threshold. At least some of them, judging from their addresses, do seem to also be corporations.

People are funny…I’m a registered independent voter, a “moderate”, if you must label me… There is NO real difference between Repubs & Dems…all they REALLY care about, is money and power…YOUR MONEY, and THEIR power…

Bradford, You are so right!

Paul Grajnert

Feb. 14, 2013, 6:17 p.m.

No, Bradford. You are a Republicon. And there is a huge difference between the two parties. One party is only for those that are racist, misogynist and sociopathic. The other party, the Democratic Party, must deal with realities and the actual many disparate, diverse people that make up the US. Indeed, that includes the sciopaths, the racists, and the misogynists, though it is difficult for people that are evil or stupid to deal with those that are not.

This sort of brings up a point I’ve been wondering about. Since the Supreme Court decided that corporations were persons and had the same rights as people (Citizens United) does that mean that corporations could run for public office? Wouldn’t it follow that Dupont, for instance, would profit from winning a Senate seat in Delaware or Chevron might want a house seat from California. Since the ruling allows foreign corporations to participate financially (and anonymously) in U.S. elections we could even have have Aramco winning a Texas governorship.

...yeah, the evil stoopd democraps DO have trouble dealing with “tepublicons”...thanks gor proving my point!…

...i.kinda like “Citizens United”...i have just begun exploring the many legal wonders of being a “person corporate”...

@longtail: I will not accept that corporations are persons until Texas executes one.

I believe that there is a root difference between the parties but they are all corrupted by the lobbying machine and we must remember that by the actions of both parties,millions of jobs were lost through NAFTA and the many globalization treaties that allowed middle class manufacturing jobs to be sent to 3rd world nations where the workers are virtually slaves,the quality is poor and the price here in the USA never changed,allowing the profits and executive pay to soar while our economy collapses and neither side will do anything to bring jobs back to the USA where they belong!

Walter D. Shutter. Jr.

Feb. 14, 2013, 10:51 p.m.

@ Jean
No state, not even Texas, can execute a Corporation, but the Federal Government can liquidate one.

I’ve noticed a curious phenomena:  There is a correlation between public opinion turning against the Republicans and the number of comments on the web that say the Democrats and the Republicans are no different from each other.

It leaves me with the impression that the supporters of one political party believe that voter apathy benefits them…

lolll…a belief which may indeed be justified.

...there is only one party, but I fergit if it’s called
demopiblian, or republicrat…same difference…
they only want ONE thing…
YOUR money, and THEIR oower…..
*i remain in support of the imminent
military coup…

...i want to be a SMALL MULTINATIONAL CONGLOMERATE called General Acoustic…we
sing and market love songs, nursey rhymes, and lullabyes…
our personal corporate motto is:
...“we bring life to good things”...

Just posted somewhere a relevant topic:
Don Mazina, Please no guff of labor union in Bangladesh now, where as in USA, Both un-unionization and raising Minimum wages must be done at the same time. Public of Countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Dijibouti, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Haiti, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mali, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, rawanda, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Uganda, Vietnam, West Indies, Yemen, Zabbia etc. badly in need of these blindly stubborn minded Republicans for at least next two decades for leading barbarian East to become better partners with the West in order to make a safer and peaceful world under one honest UN power led by North-Americans -free of hereditary outlandish manipulations by old thugs in Law making business.

Citizens United does not say that corporations are people.  That’s a doctrine that dates back to around the Civil War, and is the entire reason your home-business neighbors incorporate:  If their company does something wrong, they can’t be sued because the corporation is at fault and is a person that can be a direct target of a lawsuit.

We can debate whether that’s a useful tool and the tradeoff with any drawbacks, but it’s only barely related to Citizens United.

The Supreme Court (the summary on their website is very readable, by the way) basically said that, given the legal definitions as they stand, it would be unconstitutional to limit corporations, unions, non-profits, and so forth from contributing to political campaigns.  The reasoning is that—again, based on current legal definitions—such contributions would be an expression of political interest by the group’s owners or members.

The majority opinion, as I recall, even says that it’s an unfortunate situation, and Congress should probably fix the definitions.

Interestingly, the Tillman Act (1907) is still on the books, as far as I know.  What’s that?  You can boil it down to its second sentence.  “It shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office.”  The Citizens United decision explicitly says that it doesn’t overturn the Tillman Act.

I’ll leave it to someone smarter than I am to figure out how to reconcile that no corporation can donate but the FEC can’t stop a corporation from donating, but the point is that the Citizens United v. FEC decision doesn’t say what people think it says.

As to taking office, whether or not corporations are people, I have yet to hear anybody suggest that they are or should be citizens.

John, assuming what you say is true - and it sounds plausible- then we have all been very seriously fooled and deceived…Corporate money, and especially now, so-called “dark money”, has been the biggest corrupting influence in American politics in the last Century…Only the Repub-Dem Duopoly has done more damage…
Sure, folks should get a living wage for a days’ work, but a Congress full of MILLIONAIRE LAWYERS - as over 90% of Congress is - Is the biggest SHAME we Americans are inflicted with…
That’s why I always say:

Ummm, Republicans, this site appears to adhere to journalist’s ethics, unlike Drudge, Fox, et. al. who appear to meet in the morning to discuss what they are going to dump into today’s echo chamber which unfornately means real journalists have to waste time covering unsubstantiated nonsense.

If you want lies that stroke your ego and justify your fears and hatred, please go back to Fox. If you want some actual facts that allow you to make informed decisions, here is real journalism.

For those interested in what exactly Citizens United did in the campaign finance arena, I explored that here:

Campaign finance/lobby reform, of course, would help resolve much of the systemic corruption driving the decisions our legislators make. And the drive to choose that option, once within reach, seems to have fallen off the radar. Extreme polarization has frozen the process of determining how we can come together and resolve our common problems.

Bradford’s solution is to join with Ted Nugent and other “Band of Brothers” government hating activists to pull off a Cuba style revolution. I’m grateful most of us would prefer to fix what’s broken and move on.

John: Thanks for your explanation of Citizen’s United and the contradictory law(s) eg.“Tillman Act” which are still on the books. I think we all would like to have been flies on the wall listening to the Supreme’s inner-office discussions on the contradictions - and whether or not the Tillman Act could/should be struck down.

“Republican redistricting consultants to draw new congressional district maps in North Carolina.” -

While I understand ProPublica leans left, and they do in fact cover some great issues, at least TRY to give the appearance of being impartial (or don’t). Here in MA we have a convicted State Speaker felon for doing this very thing (Gerrymandering).

Secondly, I noticed there’s no coverage on Democrats campaign finance reports on their investments of the very firms criticized in this piece. Why?

These corporations don’t survive without BI-PARTISAN support of our own crony CONgress.

Sorry, Carolyn, but you need to lose your bleeding-heart Libtard *PARANOIA*, read ALL my comments above, and realize that a moderate, Constitution-believing American IS your best defense…
I believe in the rule of law, with full protections for minorities…
...You look like a Demopublican extremist to me…
you need to recognize *RHETORIC*, and *IRONY*...
...because, if there WAS a “military coup”, whose side would YOU be on…???...
..thanks for writing, and expressing your opinion…
...Ted Nugent…???...WTF…???...even his music SUCKS!…

@carolyn, who emoted “I think we all would like to have been flies on the wall listening to the Supreme’s inner-office discussions

Wrong venue; if you want to figure out what motivates the key members of the Supreme Court, you need to go to a Koch brothers shindig rather than the Supreme Court.

@ibsteve2u; thanks for the links! I don’t think I was looking for their “motivation” as much as musing over how they would discuss the process of translating their pre-determined Koch approved decisions into public documents which they must attempt to mask with their own sense of what appears to be intelligent, analytical, law-based, and well-researched deliberations.

We, the people, must come together to cut corporate funding of elections and politicians. It goes against our nation’s history and is a great disservice to our republic to permit valueless, soulless, profit motivated fictitious paper made entities to influence and corrupt our democratic institutions. These corporations are taking food from our families’s dinner tables, gutting our children’s schools, destroying pensions, limiting access to affordable healthcare, polluting our environment, and now they are hiding from public view for fear that us consumers will catch on. This consumer does not plan on buying from Exon or Phize for my lifetime. Corporates are gorging themselves with tax breaks and spending it to corrupt our democracy. If history has taught us anything it is that when Americans are pushed and squeezed to their limits, they don’t stay down, they get back up again and fight hard. Corporates would do well to heed history’s warnnings and support a constutional amendment that stops politicians from hounding them for money 24/7. This nation’s constitution reads “we the people” not “we the corporations.”

@carolyn:  I wouldn’t want to hear this Supreme Court talk…I don’t think that I could stomach being that close to the railroading of justice. 

In the case of Citizens United, that’s actually a pun:

A pun, though not funny at all.  But Citizens United is, you might say, the broad attack upon democracy in America…a tool to enable the “Divide, and conquer.” that is the central strategy of America’s so-called “conservatives”. 

Citizens United provides them with the ability to levy private taxes upon the American people (although technically those private taxes are called “profit”) via all of America’s corporations and then use those taxes - taxes which the American people pay with their purchase of every good and service without any knowledge of the fact that their own money is going to be used against them - to lie to the American people…to turn them against one another so that they cannot - or will not - defend their own mutual well-being and prosperity.

But this Supreme Court has made focused, tactical moves, too.  If “justice” and the defense of the Constitutional rights of the American people are their goals, then I’ll never understand how they could eviscerate the 4th Amendment by ruling that the smell of drugs and a/any noise that might indicate the disposal of drugs provides sufficient grounds for busting into somebody’s home/castle without a warrant.

Sounds and smells are open to non-scientific interpretation by the observer; worse, as you can only rarely convey ambient sounds via recordings to a jury - and never convey transient “smells” to a jury - that ruling…it means that such sounds and smells can be invented on the spot to meet the needs of the moment without fear of being held accountable by the People of this “nation of laws”.  That ruling effectively means that all an interested government agency has to do is make the claim and they can kick your doors down…and they can make such a claim without fear of repercussions.

Why do I take it so seriously?  Because I have a big mouth. 

This particular Supreme Court ruling makes it easy for bad politicians to create a situation wherein I or anyone else with a big, “inconvenient” mouth has a “most unfortunate accident” (GSW, arrhythmia or atrial fibrillation due to taser use, strangulation due to a choke-hold…the possibilities - once you throw in “resisting arrest” - are endless) at the hands of a hand-picked team - similar, say, to Bloomberg’s “anti-terror task force” - in the course of a “spontaneous” search without warrant or judicial review.

Again, you don’t have to prove that you actually smelled or heard anything; in fact, you cannot...even if you’re on the “up-and-up”.

Paranoia?  Who would have thought that the United States of America would be lied as a country into invading Iraq?  lollll…what is my house, next to that?  What is violating the sanctity of your house, compared to launching the mortgage-backed securities pyramid scam and its trillion-dollar numbers?

Bad politicians operating without the Constitutional rights of the American people to restrain them…is bad news.  The threat is enough to give a person a big mouth; I don’t ever want to see the Republicans have power again.  Ever again; they’re…rotten to the core; that fact is reflected in how their people on the Supreme Court rule.

I left a key point out:  People talk about “patterns of criminal behavior”.  It is simpler than that…once people cross that line into criminality and get away with it, they’re likely to repeat and expand upon that behavior if that behavior rewarded them.

Strip out the show trials and there is one inescapable fact:  The Republicans and who they represent got away with the mortgage-backed securities pyramid scam…and it made them wealthier. 

And there simply weren’t trials of any sort regarding Iraq; the Republicans and who they represent got away with lying America into a war...and the people the Republicans represent got richer both selling and speculating in oil - and they forced near-shore drilling upon America.

What could conceivably be next, if the Republicans have already accomplished criminality - and been rewarded for it - that would have been inconceivable a mere two decades ago?

@ibsteve2u: I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page, but I’ve tried not to obsess to the point of making myself ill - many of us would if we allowed it.

Some positive notes: Rachel Maddow’s special next Monday on the 10th anniversary of the Bush/Cheney fraud-induced Iraq war is going to be a barn burner. Those responsible will never be prosecuted, but the public is finally becoming more aware of the enormity of it, and even more fed up with those whose lies led us to destroy so many lives, shove up our national debt.

Elizabeth Warren, just out of the blocks, is currently grilling the SEC on why they’re just settling for pocket change fines instead of prosecuting the criminal CEO’s. Again, the public sort of “gets it” so maybe we’ll even see some actual prosecutions down the line (more likely though, good sources tell us it’ll be initiated by State prosecutors).

In three decades public awareness has sunk pretty low as far as our collective ability to figure out who’s yanking our chains (thanks to the “media”, privatization, and conservative school boards across the nation); but we’re finally seeing more mainstream movement in the other direction. It’ll take a long time, if ever, to regain the kind of “balance” we had in the 50’s through the 70’s when government was pretty awful (as usual), but relatively functional when compared to the corporatocracy we’re dealing with today.

ibsteve2u, I know it is fashionable today to place blame on Republicans however lets be honest here. Republicans and Democrats voted for war—I admit readily that waging war in Iraq was based on poor information that was given to we the people, we have no idea what was presented in closed door sessions with members of Congress. The systematic assault on our liberty (FISA, NDAA, Patriot Act and the like) has enjoyed bipartisan support.

I personal y believe that the issue of oil is way more complex and not just a Republican issue. We are now a Corporatocracy and that lends itself to both party’s.

Honestly we do not know for sure if all the bankers, wall street and the like vote Republican now do we?

If you scrutinize the folks surrounding Obama on issues relating to the bailouts as well as mortgages issues they are the foxes in the hen house. Much of Dodd Frank will be gutted and that want be because of just Republicans. The Volcker Rule which is part of Dodd Frank will take years if then to write the regulations for remember that Volcker worked under both Carter and Reagan.

Your, mine and our government does very little without the consent of industry, Corporations, Multinational Corporations—our foreign interest directs the nations march for wars and what is behind the interest is, you guessed it, Corporations.

The Democrats have done a great job at turning the tables on the Republicans. Take the most recent issue of sequester—the idea originated in the Whitehouse and yes Congress signed on and that means both Dems and Republicans but of late we here from the Dems mostly that it was ‘the Republicans’.

We hear that the Tea Party is evil—we hear that Republican’s want to take away SS and the like—our nation simply can not keep spending and Obama seems to believe we can spend our way out of this mess. Can you or I borrow and borrow without paying the piper? Well no. The estimates that I have seen for the debt at the end of his term hovers between 22 - 24 trillion—we need a bit of rein in on this fellow and his Democrat worshipers in Congress and all we have to question and help rein them in is Republican Congress members.

I certainly am one who would not be in favor of a one party rule nor would I ever cast a vote just because the candidate was Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, female, male or based on race.

Politics is an ugly animal and we have an abundance of very practiced political animals in Washington D.C..

@pgillenw - your words…to repeat myself (although I may not have said it last here) I’ve noticed a distinct correlation between the public’s disapproval of the Republicans and the number of times I see “Both parties are the same!” on the web; that is, they increase or decrease in tandem.

Now if it weren’t for the fact that an increase in voter apathy always benefits the Republicans, I might not find that to be remarkable.

honest here,folks…)SCOTUS CAN RULE THAT
the smell of weed, and vague “sounds” are legal justification for cops to kick down your door, then the jack-booted fascist Republicrats and their Demopublican stooges should be ALL
shot and killed, in defense - SELF DEFENSE - of the Constitution of the (once great)United States of America, and her people. When SCOTUS issues a ruling so BLATANTLY UN-
CONSTITUTIONAL, they are no longer entitled
to any protections under the law, and they be-
come Domestic Enemy Combatants….I learned
that from Bush’s White House, and he’s a Republicrat…So, that’s simply my 1st Amend-
ment rights protecting my 2nd…A well-armed
citizenry means an obedient gov’t, which is why
BOTH parties want to confiscate our guns…
Our BEST reply should be
MOLON LABE…MOLON LABE!...molon labe…
I learned THAT from…
The new world order is really

there sisters neighbour has been doing this for only a year and at present cleared the loans on there apartment and got a gorgeous Mini Cooper


Do you get the impression most spammers live in their own private, disconnected reality?

1.3 million dollars in a year and a half??? Obama’s inaguration cost 170 million. We are all doomed. Quit crying and STFU.

The above courtesy - and representative - of “the right”.

...i have no illusions - so Obamas coronation was a $170million spectacle & dog-and-pony show…i was deeply moved and inspired…
...and with an audience of 7BILLION,...
...REMEMBER, Repubs, he’s also the…
what’s left of it, anyway…

I get so tired of people beating that old drum that Unions are the evil specter and pensions the great evil.  I worked for a municipality, in a school district and my “Fabulous” pension after 11.5 years equals $165 per month.  Now, with my union pension riches, I can travel the world, right?  Those of you who keep preaching that the unions are the “cause” for our economic troubles need to do better research because the average city, county or state employee does NOT get a huge pension upon retiring.  You would do better to look at the legislators and the Administration officials first!

Chuck Sherwood

Feb. 18, 2013, 1:50 p.m.

Justin:  You should also be aware of the State Legislative Leadership Foundation, which is a cousin to ALEC.  They are not a bill mill like ALEC but provide Corporate CEOs and Lobbyist with access to State House Speakers and Senate Presidents. I have trying to get progressive folks to pay attention to them for years Check out their website—


Can we, NOW, please put these treasonous corporate “persons” in prison for +20 years each (no parole)?  Great way to put Gitmo to a use that is actually helpful to our so-called republic.

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Buying Your Vote

Buying Your Vote: Dark Money and Big Data

ProPublica is following the money and exploring campaign issues you won't read about elsewhere.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories