Rep. Mike Thompson of California says the goal is to raise at least $12.5 million in soft money. Redistricting draws unregulated cash

Top House Republicans and Democrats are raising millions of dollars for redistricting fights, opening the floodgates for what could be a $30 million campaign funded in part by unregulated, unreported soft money.

They’re doing so with permission from the Federal Election Commission and a waiver from the House Ethics Committee, but campaign watchdog groups worry that it could lead to abuses and a lack of transparency for millions in big money donations.


Rep. Mike Thompson of California, who is spearheading the effort on behalf of House Democrats, recently told Democratic colleagues that the goal is to raise at least $12.5 million in soft money, funds that will be funneled — with the donors remaining anonymous— to an organization called the National Democratic Redistricting Trust.

The Federal Election Commission voted last year to permit members to raise funds for the group, which was set up by three former House Democratic operatives, although the amount of money involved in the Democratic effort was unclear until now.

Now Republicans are getting in on the act.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who is in charge of the GOP redistricting program, said House Republicans hope to raise even more than the Democrats, perhaps as much as $20 million in hard and soft money.

Much of the money will go to legal fights, as both sides expect lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act as states start redrawing congressional maps to reflect the population and demographic shifts of the past decade.

The size and scope of this unregulated fundraising effort shows just how much is at stake with redistricting this year for both parties. Rust Belt states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania will be losing seats as the U.S. population continues to shift toward the South and West. New York will also lose two seats. Texas will gain four congressional seats, cementing its status as the second-biggest House delegation after California. Florida will also add two seats of its own.

The GOP avalanche on Election Day resulted in the major wins at the statehouse level for Republicans, giving the party control over drawing maps for 196 seats, against only 49 seats for Democrats. This GOP dominance in the statehouses sparked predictions by some political analysts that Democrats would get routed during redistricting as Republicans drew new congressional maps across the nation. But Democrats now predict they will come out of redistricting in decent shape, either with small gains or losses but definitely not the landslide some observers forecast.

To help combat any GOP redistricting gains, the National Democratic Redistricting Trust was created to fund “pre-litigation and litigation costs that arise following the next legislative redistricting process,” including Voting Rights Act challenges to contested districts.

Campaign watchdog groups complain that the FEC ruling paves the way for special-interest groups to gain leverage with party leaders by cutting six- and seven-figure checks to the Democratic and GOP redistricting programs, as well as undermining the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The FEC’s decision “opens the door to the return to the corruption of the soft-money era that Congress slammed shut with the 2002 McCain-Feingold” law, said Paul Ryan, FEC program director and associate legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group. Soft-money fundraising was banned for the national party committees by the McCain-Feingold bill, although in this case, the FEC ruled 5-1 that donations to the National Democratic Redistricting Trust “will not fund attempts to influence elections.”

Thompson, the California Democrat, has urged his Democratic colleagues to give to the trust fund, and the source of those donations will not be publicly disclosed.

Thompson also has counseled them to go to the Ethics Committee to obtain individual waivers to raise soft money for the group. Thompson and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have obtained those waivers so far, Democratic insiders said.

“What we’re trying to do is make sure we have the best information possible, the best legal information and the best statistics in regards to census numbers,” Thompson told POLITICO in a recent interview. “We want to make sure we have fair districts, that fair districts run across the country, and you do that by knowing the law and knowing the numbers.”

Thompson declined to comment on how much he wanted to raise for the National Democratic Redistricting Trust, although several Democratic sources confirmed that $12.5 million is the goal.

“We’re going to raise however much we need to have the best information and our members are equipped the best census numbers, the best analysis of those census numbers and the best understanding of the law,” Thompson added.

Brian Smoot, managing partner at the Washington consulting firm 4C Partners, is the executive director of the National Democratic Redistricting Trust. Smoot ran the independent expenditure arm of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2010 cycle. He also served as political director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2007-08 elections.

Smoot declined to say how much his group has raised so far, but he did vow that the trust “is dedicated to raising whatever money is needed to do this right.”

Despite their overwhelming electoral win on Election Day and much-anticipated gains from redistricting, Republicans complain they trail Democrats on this front, both in terms of fundraising and organization.

The Republican National Committee, which in the past took the lead in redistricting fights, was hampered last cycle by the problems of its former chairman, Michael Steele, including on the fundraising front.

The RNC is now in talks with the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group run by well-known GOP operative Ed Gillespie, to handle “pre-litigation” costs of redistricting fights, according to several sources familiar with the talks. The RSLC will use soft-money funds, including millions of dollars in corporate donations, to pay for those efforts.

Some of the money that the RSLC raises for redistricting also is expected to be funneled through a nonprofit arm of the organization, which means it won’t have to publicly report those donations.

In an interview, Westmoreland acknowledged that there was confusion about which Republican groups would be covering legal fees, especially where Voting Rights Act challenges are involved. However, he predicted that the total raised by the GOP would far exceed what Thompson hopes to receive.

“It’s going to take a lot more than $12 million,” Westmoreland said, adding that the Republican total would include an unspecified combination of hard and soft money. “As far as the soft money goes, there’s different [nonprofit groups] set up in different states.”

Westmoreland noted that “challenging maps is a lot more expensive than defending maps,” but he still expects both sides to spend a lot of money on lawyers.

The Georgia Republican said he has yet to begin raising soft money from outside groups at this point, although he said the Ethics Committee will grant waivers, allowing members to do so based on the May 2010 FEC ruling.