Hoogendyk unsuccessfully challenged Upton for the seat two years ago, when he was able to garner only 43 percent of the vote, in spite of significant support from the tea party movement. Upton out-raised and outspent Hoogendyk — with Upton reporting $2 million in fundraising and spending to Hoogendyk’s $62,000.

The über-conservative former lawmaker is expected to announce his decision Jan. 17 at a noon press event in Kalamazoo, according to an email sent by Steven Mobley, Calhoun County Republican Party chair.

If Hoogendyk tosses his hat in the ring again, he is likely to come to the fight with a much larger war chest. He has been openly courted by the conservative political action committee Club for Growth, which has recently launched a two-week television commercial campaign accusing Upton of being “liberal.” The group met with Hoogendyk in November, reports MLive.com, and while it did not issue an endorsement, the PAC did say that it was “impressed” with him.

While he has been out of the state legislature for four years, Hoogendyk has been anything but invisible. He spoke at a tea party rally protesting Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s final state of the state speech; has been actively engaged in pushing right-to-work legislation; and in November took heat for funding robocalls, which were said to have killed a local school millage election, reported Joyce Pines of the Kalamazoo Gazette. Those same robocalls may also have violated federal regulations.

Hoogendyk is anti-gay, anti-union, and anti-abortion-rights. He staunchly supports limited government and home schooling. His wife, Erin, home-schooled all of their children — in the Mattawan school district, where he reportedly helped kill the millage election.

Mobley’s email follows:

Two years ago, after much urging by friends and a lot of time in contemplation, Jack Hoogendyk made the decision to run for the 6th District Congressional seat. He did so because he felt that it was time for someone to stand on the principles of Freedom and Liberty that are a part of the foundation of our country. He also believed that it was vital to return the government “To the People” and that our nation was in need of strong leadership that would fight for those principles.

Now, two years later, we find ourselves facing much of the same. Leadership that is backing down and giving in to policies that will drive us further away from our independence. Leadership that is accepting status quo as good enough. Leadership that is not willing to fight with every fiber of their being to turn this nation around and Jack is once again listening to the urging of those asking him if he will fight for us.

Jack and Erin have spent countless hours in thought, evaluation, and prayer, as well as, seeking the advice of trusted friends. And now it is decision time. I would like to invite you to come out and join us as Jack makes an important announcement regarding the 6th Congressional seat.

Progressive groups were quick to condemn a possible Hoogendyk candidacy.

“A primary between Upton and Hoogendyk would be a rerun financed by Washington, DC corporate power brokers,” David Holtz, executive director of Progress Michigan, told The American Independent by email. “Upton’s Wall Street and Big Oil backers versus an extremist anti-government group that, more than any other, is responsible for driving this Republican Congress off the cliff into historic depths of low public opinion. Expect low ratings from middle class Michigan voters who may just decide to tune both of them out.”

Amy Hunter, president of the Equality Michigan Pride PAC, was also scathing in her assessment of a Hoogendyk candidacy.

“Given Rep. Upton’s extraordinary shift to the far-right, it seems unlikely that the GOP could hope for someone less interested in equality for women, families and gay and transgender Michiganders,” she said in an email to TAI. “Jack Hoogenbyk [sic] unfortunately, fits that description. The people of the Michigan 6th Congressional District deserve a representative who cares about all of his or her constituents. Someone who cares about fundemental [sic] fairness and equality for all Michiganders, not someone whose far-right agenda harms or excludes thousands of Michigan families and children – gay or straight.”

Photo: Former Michigan state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk appears at a tea party event at the state Capitol (AMERICAN INDEPENDENT/Todd Heywood).

In June, the former Massachusetts governor took to Facebook and just short of endorsed Senate Bill 5, a law that curbs collective bargaining rights for public employees, the signature work of Ohio Governor John Kasich’s freshman term.

“My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low,” he wrote on June 18. “I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio’s leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit www.BetterOhio.org for more information.”

BetterOhio.org is the campaign website for Building a Better Ohio, the group formed in reaction to public labor unions’ successful effort to place a veto referendum (known as Issue 2) for the controversial law on the November ballot.

Then early this week, Romney seemed far less willing to back the unpopular measure. While visiting a phone bank effort by Republicans working to keep the law, which would require a majority ‘yes’ vote on Issue 2, he told party officials, “I’m not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues. But I am supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts here.”

Conservatives reacted strongly to the presumed GOP frontrunner’s remarks, accusing him of playing both sides on important political issues. A statement from the conservative Club for Growth, accuses Romney of playing a game of brinksmanship: “The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that he’s taken both sides of nearly every issue important to us. He’s against a flat tax, now he’s for it. He says he’s against Obamacare, but was for the individual mandate and subsidies that are central to Obamacare,” Barney Keller, communications director for the Club for Growth, told Washington Post’s Greg Sargent. “He thinks that collective bargaining issues should be left for states to decide if he’s Ohio, but he took the opposite position when he was in New Hampshire. This is just another statement in a long line of statements that will raise more doubts about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be in the minds of many Republican primary voters.”

Romney tried to sidestep the issue, claiming through a spokesperson that such matters should be left up to individual states.

Now this morning, in Virginia, Romney came out in support of the law. “I fully support Gov. Kasich’s Question 2 in Ohio,” Romney said. “I’m sorry if I created any confusion there.”

Wavering support on a critical swing-state’s signature rallying point comes at a time when Issue 2, which appears to be doomed according to recent polling, could cost him the all-important independent vote in an all-important purple state.

Romney may have another motivation to avoid clarity, as well: the other hot-button issue in Ohio is Issue 3, a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would prohibit the individual mandate clause of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The tea-party-led effort to block “Obamacare” could be a major stumbling block for Romney, who led the effort for a similar health-reform effort in Massachusetts while he was governor there.

The spending broke a number of state records for spending in legislative races. It also surpassed earlier spending predictions—Common Cause Wisconsin predicted the races might attract up to $30 million in August.

The biggest spenders were outside special interest groups. The We Are Wisconsin PAC, which is made up of unions, spent $10.7 million, edging out the conservative Club for Growth’s $9 million.

Many of the spenders, like the Club for Growth, were organized under new rules put in place by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that don’t require them to disclose where their funding comes from. The flood of open money in the state has led open government advocates to push for better disclosure requirements.

Republican candidates spent $4 million, according to the analysis, while Democrats spent slightly less.

The most expensive campaign came in Wisconsin’s 8th Senate District, where incumbent Republican Sen. Alberta Darling fought off her Democratic challenger at a total cost of $10 million.

*Phony issue ad group and estimated spending.
**Estimated phony issue ad and independent expenditure spending.

Thompson told Milwaukee’s WTMJ that he was running for Senate “because the country is in terrible shape.”

Thompson has taken heat from conservative groups like the Club for Growth, who say Thompson isn’t conservative enough.

“The truth of the matter is I was the original conservative,” Thompson said on the radio show. “I was the one who carried the state of Wisconsin four times, when Republicans and Republicanism was the not de rigueur of the state, and we were able to change the state of Wisconsin, not to a red state, but a purple state.”

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel points out that Thompson himself admitted his moderation in an earlier interview.

“I’m not as conservative as I once was. … You grow on your job. … It’s much better to use pragmatic common sense than be so rigidly tied to one ideology you can’t see the forest for the trees.”

The only other candidate to enter the race has been Tammy Baldwin, who currently serves the state as a congresswoman. Other Republicans are expected to throw their hats in the ring.

Scott’s bill would slash the corporate income tax rate for the highest-earning companies in the country. Corporate taxes already comprise a smaller portion of federal tax revenue than they have since records began in 1950.

Scott’s bill would change language in current Internal Revenue Code, replacing the rate of 35 percent that appears in a tax code subsection on “corporations in general” with one of 23 percent. Currently, the rate of 35 percent applies to the top corporate tax bracket. Businesses making less than $10 million a year would be unaffected by the legislation, but businesses making more than that would reap huge benefits.

Scott prides himself on being a friend of business (PDF). Indeed, the largest single contributor to his successful 2010 campaign was Club for Growth. Club for Growth is a tax-exempt conservative organization dedicated to “limited government and economic freedom.” Like many such organizations, it has ties to the Koch brothers: Howard Rich, a developer on the Club for Growth’s board, also serves on the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute alongside David Koch.

Although some of its corporate partners would benefit hugely from the cuts, Koch Industries itself may have little to gain directly, because, it has been reported, it pays no corporate income tax. When an Obama official mentioned this last August, the only response from Koch Industries was loudly-professed outrage that the administration seemingly knew confidential information about its tax status.

Winning candidates in elections in which power changed hands were aided by average spending of $764,326 by independent groups, while losing candidates were aided by average spending of $273,268, a ratio of nearly 2.8 to 1. The analysis deemed outside spending as aiding candidates if it either praised them or criticized their opponents. It does not include outside spending for primaries.

The most blatant disparities, the report notes, occurred in the tight Senate races in Illinois and Pennsylvania:

The Republican winners in the Pennsylvania and Illinois Senate races received by far the greatest advantage over their opponents in outside spending. In Illinois, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) benefited from nearly $8 million in spending over opponent Alexander Giannoulias, chiefly due to $5.6 million in anti-Giannoulias spending by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS entities, and to $1.7 million in anti-Giannoulias spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In total, Kirk enjoyed an advantage in outside spending of greater than 11 to 1.

In Pennsylvania’s Senate contest, victorious former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) enjoyed an advantage of nearly $5.3 million—a ratio of nearly 4 to 1—over Rep. Joe Sestak (D). Toomey was aided by $2.5 million in anti-Sestak spending by the Club for Growth Action Fund, an independent expenditure committee of the organization of which Toomey previously served as president. Also spending more than $1 million against Sestak were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($1.7 million) and the Republican Jewish Coalition ($1.1 million).

When the independent expenditures of the traditional party committees like the NRSC and the DSCC are added in, however, outside spending in these races becomes a lot more equitable. And political scientists will reasonably ask whether the outside spending provided momentum for Republican victories or whether the impetus to give cash to conservative outside groups was simply a reflection of that pre-existing political momentum.

The report remains worthwhile, however, because we haven’t seen a swing in the House this big since the 1930s — and many would argue that the surge in unlimited outside spending has dramatically reduced the power of incumbency. If you believe that corporate and deep-pocketed donors are simply more likely to give to Republicans, then you might also conclude that Democrats will not enjoy the same favor when they are out of office. But both parties have been the beneficiaries of corporate PACs and well-to-do individuals in the past, making it equally as likely that the new normal of outside spending will cause the House to behave increasingly like a seesaw, flipping between parties every two years. Whether that’s a good or a bad phenomenon, on the other hand, is a question for the political scientists…

The leading candidates for the [Appropriations] panel’s chairmanship, Reps. Jerry Lewis (R., Calif.) and Rep. Harold Rogers (R., Ky.), are longtime members of the panel who have been stalwart defenders of earmarks, which allowed lawmakers to direct money to local projects outside the normal federal funding system.

Mr. Lewis was a senior member and chairman of the panel during the George W. Bush [era]. Conservative critics say Republicans allowed spending to run out of control at that time.

“Have Republicans learned their lesson?” asked David Keating, executive director of Club for Growth, a political group that has backed many tea-party candidates. “One way to find out is who they put in charge of Appropriations. If it’s Jerry Lewis, the answer is: Probably not.”

Also up in the air is the chairmanship of the House Energy Committee. The ranking Republican, Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), is also seeking a waiver on the term limit rule, but some colleagues are arguing his public apology to BP executives during the hearings following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill may be hurting his chances.

The Republican National Committee, headed by Chairman Michael Steele, is losing influence as interest groups increase their independent spending. (Flickr: pamhule)

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, many groups, from independent political action committees to the Republican National Committee, decided to test the waters and file cases against the Federal Elections Commission arguing that they, too, should enjoy the ability to solicit unlimited donations for spending on specific, non-coordinated campaign activities. In the case of the RNC, the group sought to reverse the longstanding “soft money” ban in McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation that prevented the parties from raising unlimited sums of money for “party building” and other activities not directly related to elections. While the challenge failed, the three-judge panel that ruled against the RNC did express worry about the implications of a growing divide between the fundraising capacities of outside groups and the traditional party committees.

[Economy1] “Under current law,” the panel wrote in a footnote to its opinion, “outside groups — unlike candidates and political parties — may receive unlimited donations both to advocate in favor of federal candidates and to sponsor issue ads. We recognize the RNC’s concern about this disparity, which, it argues, discriminates against the national political parties in political and legislative debates. But that is an argument for the Supreme Court or Congress.”

In the absence of any such intervention in Congress, however, that potential disparity is looking increasingly like a reality. After countless election cycles in which the traditional party committees — the RNC, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and their Democratic counterparts — dominated the landscape of independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, they are being substantially outgunned this time around by a nexus of outside spending outfits that represent a variety of special interests. According to data compiled in mid-October, 59 percent of all independent expenditures are coming from non-party-aligned groups — a substantial reversal from the previous midterm election cycle in 2006, when party committees accounted for 82 percent of all spending on such ads.

This election cycle, the bulk of independent expenditures — particularly among conservative groups — have in many ways mimicked the former role of the now-enfeebled RNC. As of Oct. 20, conservative outside groups have combined to spend over $99 million on ads to support Republicans and attack Democrats, more than twice as much as the NRSC and the NRCC. And the biggest conservative non-party players — like American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, the 60-Plus Association, and Americans for Job Security — are linked both to each other and the Bush-era GOP by operatives such as Bush advisers Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, who informally advise and raise funds for the groups.

Election experts and campaign lawyers argue that the changed landscape has broad implications for the future of how elections are fought and won. Fueled by the anonymity afforded by the tax status of many outside groups on one side and the laws enforcing tight fundraising limits for the parties on the other, the shift in the landscape threatens to weaken the party committees’ ability to enforce discipline over the messaging it would like to adopt and the candidates it might want to run in different races around the country. Meanwhile, the shadowy and transient nature of many new groups entering the scene has the potential to usher in a decidedly more reckless era of campaign spending, in which outside spending entities that lack the accountability and reputational considerations of the national parties continue to seize a more prominent role in the national discourse.

*****

When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law passed in 2002, it drew praise from reform groups as a way to limit the influence of money in elections. Now, however, many admit that after lax enforcement by regulatory agencies and court rulings like Citizens United, McCain-Feingold ultimately just caused that money to migrate to groups outside the umbrella of the traditional parties. Following the law’s passage, new independent groups began exploiting various sections of the tax code in earnest to serve as an outlet for the soft-money political contributions that previously made their way to the national party coffers.

“The soft money ban, no question,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein, a law firm that specializes in election law, in response to a question about the cause of the declining influence of the party committees. “You can point right to that and the congressional testimony where the rise of independent third-party groups was predicted on the floor of the U.S. Congress.” Some groups opposed the bill’s basic principle of limiting any form of campaign spending, but to others, said Burns, “it was a policy objection among people who feared we’re going to legislate away the power of political parties. I don’t have a judgment as to whether the RNC is any less powerful in relation to American Crossroads or whomever, but by hamstringing the parties in terms of the money they can raise for similar activity, that can’t not be detrimental.”

The party committees aren’t in danger of disappearing anytime soon — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, NRSC and NRCC are all still among the top ten groups makings independent expenditures — but experts note that their decline in relative importance in funding races could affect the bridging role they often play in crafting a common message among different interest groups in the parties.

“In coming up with a platform, in our country the parties tend to be umbrella groups that prevent splintering among allies, like social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, or labor unions and ethnic minorities in the Democratic Party,” said Loyola Law School professor Rick Hasen, an elections law expert. “If parties were weaker, I think that you could potentially see some shift in the two-party system, but I don’t think it would ever come to that because the people who control the rules are also a part of the parties.”

But even if the two-party system remains intact, there is evidence that the new campaign finance landscape has already come to the aid of outside candidates who were, at times, opposed by party leadership. “I think you’re seeing a perfect example on the right with the rise of the Tea Party,” said Burns.

Indeed, in many low-turnout primaries across the country, outside spending groups like the Club for Growth and the Tea Party Express were able to leverage conservative anger into upset primary victories for hyper-conservative candidates through large, last-minute infusions of cash in states like Kentucky, Alaska and Delaware. And while the Republican Party has temporarily put its internecine conflicts on hold in an effort to win majorities in Congress, the party’s divisions following the election could quickly be magnified once again by the outside spending outfits that have risen to support the different factions.

“Republicans don’t really have that consensus on where to go and who’s in charge right now,” said Paul Blumenthal, who studies political spending at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for greater transparency in government. “Where do they line up in the Republican [presidential] primary? How do they go after each other? That’s the next story.”

And while most outside spending efforts in the current general election cycle are informally acknowledged as a sort of auxiliary wing of the Republican and Democratic parties, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case in elections to come.

“What we’ve seen up till now is the Republican leadership in exile control the party and decide who can get elected and who can’t, but it’s conceivable another group of people or corporations not in Republican leadership could do the same thing,” said Blumenthal. “While we haven’t directly seen that in many cases, there have been some groups, like [Alaskans Standing Together] running ads for Lisa Murkowski, that are made up entirely of corporations. This is just the first instance where such a landscape exists and I’m sure it will continue to surprise us.”

*****

As to whether this infusion of outside cash at the expense of the parties’ ability to enforce discipline represents a positive or negative trend for policy debates — and democratic discourse in general — it’s simply too soon to tell. On one level, said Burns, “as much as one might disagree with a group’s message, you’re increasing the amount of public debate and bringing in more voices, and that’s always a net positive.”

Yet non-party actors tend to bring an element of recklessness to political contests as well. “Outside groups tend to be more negative because there’s less reputational costs for doing so,” said Hasen. “If the Republican Party runs an ad that’s really negative, it could hurt the party brand, but a group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is gone by the next election cycle.”

Analyses of the nature of ads during the current election cycle by the Wesleyan Media Project bear these predictions out, at least in part. While the overall percentage of negative ads isn’t up significantly over the 2008 cycle, the Project concludes that “one effect of increased interest group activity is that outside groups are increasingly becoming the source of negativity.”

One in every three attack ads in Senate races, according to the study, is brought by an interest group — a rate that’s up about 7 percentage points from 2008. A growing division of campaign labor has emerged, in other words, in which candidates in many races — most notably Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck in Colorado — pledge to run clean campaigns while relying on outside spending outfits to perform their dirty work for them.

“Campaign financing tends to be dynamic,” said Hasen. “After every election cycle there’s often a response.” But if recent trends continue and Congress doesn’t act, it’s possible the traditional party committees could eventually find themselves in an unfamiliar place — just one special interest group among many.

Pat Toomey isn’t some fair weather economic conservative who will abandon pro-growth principles when the pressure is on. Pat Toomey is a true believer, and a true friend to economic freedom.

Pat Toomey is the rare kind of dynamic leader who can persuade independent voters that the path to prosperity is through less government, lower taxes, and freer markets. He won’t only represent our principles, he will expand the number of Americans who hold them. [...]

Our new investment in the Pennsylvania Senate race is big, over $700,000, but we can and should make it bigger.

With your help today, we can add to our buy and put it on more stations in more markets from now until Election Day. Every dollar you can contribute is another audience, another market, another voter we can reach.

The Club for Growth was one of the first groups, along with the Democrat-leaning Commonsense Ten, to petition the FEC to form a Political Action Committee that could solicit unlimited contributions in the wake of court rulings on Citizens United and other court cases that followed it. The Club hasn’t been the biggest national player in this year’s election cycle, but it’s doubling down in a big way on its favorite candidate — and former president — in Pennsylvania, and it’s hoping to use its ability to raise unlimited cash from rich and corporate donors to its advantage.

“As you know, there are NO CONTRIBUTION LIMITS for Club for Growth Action, and it can accept both personal and corporate contributions,” Club for Growth president Chris Chocola reminds supporters in today’s appeal. “Every dollar you can spare is another dollar closer to victory.”

The RJC has taken a strong interest in the Pennsylvania race. It attacked Sestak earlier in the campaign following an endorsement he received from former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), another figure the group considers to be dangerously anti-Israel. Its new ad points out that Sestak said he would support the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a Pennsylvania civilian court and paints the idea as irresponsible.

Going after Sestak on national security issues seems unlikely to make a big dent in his support. The man is a retired three-star admiral who worked in counterintelligence for years. Yet the added million dollars’ worth of negative air time in an area he needs to win by a wide margin is a sizable sum that will counterbalance the cash-on-hand advantage that Sestak improbably enjoys over former Rep. Pat Toomey.

Another interesting storyline to monitor will be to see what additional moves, if any, Toomey’s old friends at the Club for Growth will make on his behalf in the final weeks of the campaign.