McCutcheon v. FEC ruling will lead to a proliferation of new PACs and joint fundraising committees, Dan Backer says he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court’sruling will lead to a proliferation of new PACs and joint fundraising committees, as so many election law observers have predicted Does Backer know what he’s talking about? Besides being the lead attorney for Shaun McCutcheon, over the last three election cycles he has overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee, in terms of the number of participants.

In the wake of the McCutcheon decision last week, donors still may give only a limited amount to a particular candidate or committee. But with the cap off on overall donations by individuals, critics of the ruling say we can expect a gaggle of new groups to pop up to harness the now limitless donation power of individual wealthy donors. And those PACs, along with candidates and party committees, can band together and create joint fundraising vehicles — cooperative efforts to collect big checks from donors and then distribute the funds among the participants.

What’s envisioned — or feared, depending on one’s perspective — are “super JFCs” that can ask each donor for a check in the millions.



In an interview with OpenSecrets Blog this week, Backer, 36, said the whole idea is nonsense.

“I assure you that anyone who thinks these super JFCs are going to proliferate is out of their freaking minds,” Backer said.

Backer has done his fair share of creating new PACs and joint fundraising committees, especially lately. According to OpenSecrets.org data, in 2010, Backer was the treasurer for four committees registered with the FEC. In 2012, the number was 18, and so far in 2014, he is listed as the treasurer for 38. And in many cases he’s more than just a name on the paperwork; a number of the groups have paid his law firm, DB Capitol Strategies, for political and legal advice. Correspondingly, his firm’s receipts have sharply increased: According to an OpenSecrets.org analysis of expenditure data, in 2010 DB Capitol Strategies was paid about $9,300 by federal committees; that increased to $167,648 in 2012, and so far in the 2014 cycle it has been paid $288,127. One of Backer’s most prominent projects has been the Conservative Action Fund, which operates as both a traditional PAC and a super PAC, with two separate accounts and fundraising operations. On the PAC side, the group raised just $25,646 in 2012, but on the super PAC side, it raised $205,000 — most of which ($185,000) was donated by Backer’s star client, Shaun McCutcheon. McCutcheon also loaned an additional $121,620 to the group — a loan Backer said he forgave. Conservative Action Fund reported making about $134,000 in independent expenditures, including some against a handful of Republicans. The TeaParty.Net Leadership Fund has been, by far, Backer’s biggest client, paying his firm more than $167,000 over the last two cycles. The organization, a hybrid that is part PAC and part super PAC, has raised more than $3.8 million so far in the 2014 cycle, and is an excellent example of how Backer’s many groups serve multiple purposes. The group has spent $238,000 against Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) and has also transferred more than $138,000 to other organizations — including $40,000 to the In Defense of Free Speech Joint Fundraising Committee, which lists another lawyer at Backer’s firm as treasurer. In Defense of Free Speech passed the money on to the Senate campaigns of Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and, interestingly, John Cornyn (R-Texas) — the opponent of another client of Backer’s, Rep. Steve Stockman. The only other contributor to In Defense of Free Speech JFC was a PAC, also run by Backer, called Unum E Pluribus, which lists the same address as the TeaParty.Net Leadership Fund.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

Still another of Backer’s committees, Freshman Hold ‘Em PAC, was possibly the largest congressional JFC of the last election cycle. It raised $202,000 and distributed about $192,000 to at least 31 different candidates. And, Backer says, it was a huge hassle.

“You have a layer of complexity that is astronomical,” he said.

Each candidate or committee has to be wrangled into signing forms, lawyers have to be herded and there’s endless administrative work. Was his super JFC worth it?

“No, I don’t think so, not from my perspective,” Backer said. “No, it was absolutely not worth it.”

According to expenditure reports, Backer’s firm has been paid just $17,000 by Freshmen Hold ‘Em.

Backer said he, for one, wouldn’t be getting involved with this kind of work.

“I wouldn’t do this. I would refuse this kind of work,” he said. “The burdens involved and the technical problems involved are not worth it.”

Losing the personal touch?





Backer added that the biggest reason he thinks super JFCs won’t take off is that, while they may be an efficient way to extract money from a single donor, from the donor’s perspective, they are impersonal and don’t offer any advantages — an assertion that has many skeptics.

“For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks,” he said. “For them, it’s not about giving money, it’s about building a relationship. You’re not going to get any face time, they’re not going to hear your story.” Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate — legal, “completely non-corrupting gratitude,” Backer hastened to note.

Backer dismissed the idea of a single donor who wants to give a multi-million dollar check to a joint fundraising committee.

“If there’s a donor who wants to cut a multi-million dollar check they won’t get anything out of it,” he said. “If I had that kind of money to screw around with, I’d much rather give to the candidates and then spend the rest of it on independent expenditures.”

But that perspective makes a big assumption that critics say just isn’t likely: that the checks will be solicited only by representatives of the JFC, not any of the participants. A member of Congress participating in a JFC could solicit a major donor he or she has a connection with, accepting the maximum contribution for his or her own campaign and steering the rest to party committees or the campaign committees of other members, suggested Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.

The strongest current of money transfers won’t be from the top down — a large donor giving to a faceless JFC run by party honchos and attorneys who then distribute it outwards — it will be from the bottom up, Ryan predicted.

“It’s about the individual who happens to be a candidate and their career trajectory in their own party,” he said. “You build your position in the party by making rain for the party, and the striking down of aggregate limits will allow aspiring party leaders to make rain in a much bigger way.” And party leaders will have exponentially more power to solicit six- and seven-digit checks. Donors may be flattered or annoyed if the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader makes the ask, but many certainly will consider the opportunity to make such an impression on someone who wields considerable power.

“The check won’t be given to some lawyer who represents the JFC, you can hand it to the member who asked you for it,” Ryan said. Backer may be among the first to know who’s right. Follow Russ on Twitter: @russchoma Image: Shaun McCutcheon leaves the Supreme Court following oral arguments in his case, accompanied by his attorney Dan Backer, at right. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜