Leonard Boswell

The mailer, reproduced below, is very similar to the TV ad. It attacks Boswell for supporting President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and says the American Jobs Act will mean “more big government spending and tax increases of $450 billion.”

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies has so far spent $186,556 at the KCCI and WHO networks in Des Moines, the local CBS and NBC affiliates. The group has ties to former White House deputy chief Karl Rove.

It’s unclear how much Crossroads is spending on the mailing, or what communities are receiving it. The mailing below was received in Des Moines.

Boswell faces a tough re-election battle against fellow U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames), who’s opted to move and take on Boswell rather than face U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) in his current district.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the 501(c)(4) “outside spending” group spent $15.1 million against Democrats in the 2009-10 cycle and $479,619 for Republicans. It spent another $1.1 million on electioneering communications. The group doesn’t disclose its donors.

American Crossroads, a related “super PAC,” raised $26.5 million in 2010 and spent $21.5 million. It raised and spent the most out of any independent expenditure-only committees in 2010.

But if the dinner party had been in June 2011, Romney would have been stretching the legal bounds of allowed coordination between a candidate and a super PAC. The FEC issued an advisory opinion on the question in July. The timing of Romney’s meeting highlights just how quickly the already ambiguous guidelines on coordination, which regulate the relationship between candidates and super PACs, are changing, and how they stretch the boundaries of campaign finance limits.

On the other side of the organization spectrum, 501(c) nonprofits are accepting unlimited, anonymous donations and funneling them into super PACs, providing complete secrecy to donors. But these nonprofits, too, are buttressed by weak regulation, say critics. Meanwhile, their funding increases as a result of the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Candidates can only solicit money from nonprofits if the organization’s “main purpose” is not political activity, according to FEC regulations. If a 501(c) organization exceeds the minimum amount of political activity, it becomes a Qualified Nonprofit Corporation, and can then make political independent expenditures. But as reported by Roll Call last week, a more precise definition than “main purpose” has “never been clearly spelled out.”

The Internal Revenue Service says 501(c) nonprofits can only participate in “insubstantial” amounts of political activity, which Washington insiders have taken to mean social aid work must be 51 percent of the group’s purpose. But that is understood more as a rule of thumb.

This distinction has come under increased scrutiny as nonprofits both receive and give donations in the political realm — including to super PACs.

In 2010, the nonprofit advised by Karl Rove, Crossroads GPS  spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisements for Senate races around the country in 2010. The actions of the nonprofit, which is affiliated with the American Crossroads super PAC, prompted Sen. Dick Durbin and the nonprofit groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center to request an IRS review of Crossroads 501(c) status and a clarification of the rules governing nonprofits’ political action. 

Coordination confusion

Federal laws guiding super PAC coordination are equally narrow, say critics; super PACs may be independent groups in name, but the reality tells another story, according to critics, allowing for a large amount of activity outside the legal definition of coordination.

“The critical point is that the [coordination] laws are pretty modest,” said Paul S. Ryan, FEC Program Director and Associate Legal Counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. Candidates and super PACs “can’t coordinate on a specific detail, but it’s false that they can’t interact.”

As far as the FEC is concerned, coordination is defined as: “made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”

The rules allow “a lot of interaction that’s not independent,” said Ryan. “It’s an overstatement and misstatement to say that they [super PACs] have to be independent.”

The rules have created enough head-spinning that comedian Stephen Colbert devoted his show Monday to spoofing them.

A super PAC can support a specific candidate so long as their coordination is within the limits of the three coordination “prongs,” as the FEC calls them.

The first and most widely known is the restriction on coordinated spending. Super PACs are called independent expenditure groups because the decisions about how they spend their money can’t be made with the input of a candidate, though the money can be spent in support of a candidate or an issue that is important to the candidate.

The second is a limitations on public communications that can be made in support of candidates. If the communication is for electioneering purposes, advocates the defeat or victory of a candidate, has the input of a candidate or is disseminated 120 days or fewer before the election, it is considered coordinated.

The third coordination guideline covers solicitation. The candidate is not allowed to solicit or direct any money for super PACs, said Ryan with the Campaign Legal Center but “that restriction is quite modest.”

How does this affect the system?

Coordination limits have been pushed by candidates and super PACs in a number of ways. Even with these limitations, super PACs unlimited donation allowances bring in significantly more funding than traditional PACs, which can only take donations of up to $5,000 in support of candidates. Restore Our Future was created to support Romney, and has so far raised more than $12 million this year. By contrast, Romney’s traditional PAC, Free & Strong America, raised only a little over $3 million in the same time period.

All the same, several groups have submitted advisory opinion requests pertaining to “coordination” to the FEC, and some of the most significant changes in campaign finance have come from these groups.

A ruling in July 2011 allowed candidates to attend super PAC fundraisers; the idea of hybrid PACs that have a bank account both for independent and coordinated expenditures originated with an advisory opinion request to the FEC, and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) submitted an advisory opinion request last month asking whether a leadership PAC could also open an independent expenditure bank account.

But “the cutting edge of how much interaction on the spending of money can you get away with,” said Ryan, is being pushed by the super PAC American Crossroads. Its request seeks permission for American Crossroads to run advertisements that “feature incumbent members of Congress who might face uncertain re-election prospects,” and asks whether this could hurt its status as an independent expenditure committee.

Weakness of the FEC

The Federal Election Commission, the body charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, is first and foremost hampered by an ideological divide. Five of its six commissioners are on expired terms, and three Republican commissioners “think all campaign finance laws unconstitutional.”

This leads to lax regulation of what is already an “unlimited, unregulated shadow campaign,” says Ryan. “Million-dollar contributions to the Super PACs pose just as big a threat of corruption as would million-dollar contributions directly to candidates.”

Former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove and talk show host Neal Boortz will speak in Jacksonville on Fri., Nov. 18, as part of “Stand Up for America: Debt, Taxes, and You Decide 2012.” According to a press release, the event will be “a lively and entertaining discussion of the important issues in the news, including the 2012 election, spending, debt, and taxes.”

WOKV radio’s Andy Dean and Jamie Dupree will also be participating in the event.

Rove still has his hands in governmental affairs. American Crossroads, a Super PAC founded in part by Rove, recently launched a series of attack ads targeting Democrats across the country. One, which aired in Florida, accused Sen. Bill Nelson of “voting for skyrocketing debt” and “reckless spending.” The group also launched a Spanish-language campaign that directed viewers to the English-language nomoreblankchecks.com, a website supported by Rove’s Crossroads GPS.

In addition to hosting his nationally syndicated radio show, Boortz has co-authored a series of books, including The Fair Tax Book, The Terrible Truth About Liberals, Somebody’s Gotta Say It and Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics.

Protesters with Occupy Jacksonville, one of the many offshoots of the Occupy Wall Street protests, have announced they will be demonstrating outside the event.

Third-party organizations such as PACs, under FEC rules, are not allowed to coordinate or work directly with candidate campaigns except under very limited circumstances. But recently the Nebraska Democratic Party and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pushed that envelope by developing television and radio political advertisements that featured U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who is expected to appear on the 2012 ballot. (Nelson has not yet officially launched his 2012 bid and has said he will make his decision next month.)

State Democrats, the DSCC and the Nelson campaign maintain that the ads are not campaign ads because no one is asked directly to support Nelson’s election. Instead, they say, these are issue ads, or ads that are intended to educate voters on specific issues and/or policy debates. It’s estimated that roughly $1 million has been spent on the ad campaign thus far; and, according to Nelson’s campaign, similar ads were run in 2006 at a tune of roughly $1.5 million.

In response, Nebraska Republicans filed a complaint with the FEC, charging that the ads are veiled campaign messages intended for Nelson’s reelection and, therefore, far exceed the $240,000 cap on such coordinated pushes. And American Crossroads, a conservative group founded by Karl Rove, has asked the FEC for an advisory opinion to determine if it can “adopt the tactics” and use federal candidates in its ads. If the FEC rules that such advertisements are indeed issue-based, state parties will no longer be subject to a cap on how much they can spent to help the election hopes of a candidate and third-party groups will have a whole new political buffet at the ready.

On his Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report, Colbert provided his typical take on the controversy before bringing in his attorney and former FEC head Trever Potter to discuss if the Colbert Super PAC could get in on the action.

“These Ben Nelson issue ads and the kinds of ads that Karl wants to run, they’re not campaign ads, right?” asked Colbert. “They’re just issue ads that happen to have the candidate in them who is campaigning for office. Just because someone is in my ad doesn’t mean that we are coordinating with their campaign — anymore than just because [or] if my penis was in someone’s vagina doesn’t mean we are having sex.”

Ultimately, Colbert signs a letter to the FEC asking the body to approve the American Crossroads’ request. In addition to the letter, which was not read on air, Colbert developed a sample ad, embedded below and featuring former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, to show the FEC members how approving the request would play out in advertisements.

It isn’t the first time Roemer has appeared on The Colbert Report, nor is is the first time the Democrat-turned-Republican has taken on special interest money in politics. His campaign has has a self-imposed ban on special interest money, and will only accept individual contributions of $100 or less.

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which has ties to former White House deputy chief Karl Rove, has ads scheduled to run through Nov. 7 at both KCCI and WHO in Des Moines. KCCI – the local CBS affiliate – and WHO – the local NBC affiliate – are the two biggest networks in Iowa’s capitol and largest city.

Crossroads has so far spent $186,556 at the two stations, with ads running since late June. The spot being run targets U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, (D-Des Moines), and President Obama.

Boswell and the Iowa Democratic Party responded to the ads last week, with Boswell’s campaign asking for donations to combat the ads and the IDP saying Crossroads is trying to support Boswell’s 2012 challenger and U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames).

Crossroads then lashed back at Boswell, saying the statements from his campaign and the IDP don’t explain why he voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the 501(c)(4) “outside spending” group spent $15.1 million against Democrats in the 2009-10 cycle and $479,619 for Republicans. It spent another $1.1 million on electioneering communications. The group doesn’t disclose its donors.

American Crossroads, a related “super PAC,” raised $26.5 million in 2010 and spent $21.5 million. It raised and spent the most out of any independent expenditure-only committees in 2010.

The super PAC, which must disclose its donors, has raised $6.6 million so far this cycle.

Crossroads GPS focuses on seven issues, according to its website: lower taxes, less government spending, building the private sector, reducing government worker pay, shutting down the borders, reworking health care reform, pushing for American energy development.

Paulsen was “glittered” as he was accepting the Friend of the Family award from the Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition on Friday morning during that group’s strategy session on passing an anti-gay marriage amendment, and Rove was hit with glitter during a book signing at the conference following his speech.

Activist Ben Egerman shouted, “Feel the rainbow,” as he tossed a box of glitter on Rove while he was signing his book for conference goers.

Rove played a large part in using same-sex marriage bans across the country in order to bolster Republican chances at the ballot box. Minnesota has a proposed constitutional amendment banning marriage rights for same-sex coupleso n the ballot in 2012.

A few hours earlier, Michael Cahill shouted, “You’re no friend to my family!” as he threw glitter on Rep. Erik Paulsen as he was receiving an award as a “Friend of the Family” by the Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition. The group was founded by Ralph Reed as a 21st Century version of the Christian Coalition and much of its leadership is dedicated to convincing voters to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Paulsen, who generally stays mum on social issues, got the support of James Dobson in his first run for Congress. Earlier this year, he voted against repealing the military’s ban on gay and lesbian service members.

“Because of the hateful rhetoric of people like Erik Paulsen and Karl Rove, I was subjected to ‘reparative’ therapy as a teenager,” Cahill said in a statement following the events. “It’s this sort of twisted belief and hateful language that motivates families across the country to push loved ones into harmful treatment, endangering their vitality and emotional stability in the process.”

“Let me be clear, we are going to continue these glitter actions so long as people like Paulsen and Rove are doing everything they possibly can to make the lives of queer people worse,” Egerman added.

The glitterings are the brainchild of Nick Espinosa, who glittered Newt Gingrich at a book signing in May and held two actions at Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Christian counseling business. His actions inspired the glittering of Tim Pawlenty in San Francisco earlier this year and the Minnesota Family Council at the State Fair. The movement hit popular culture when, several weeks ago, the season premiere of Glee used glittering as part of the story line.

“We’ve seen this show before,” said Espinosa. “Republicans are using Minnesotans in a desperate attempt to boost turn-out in 2012, not caring what damage they do to Minnesotan families along the way. It’s sick, it’s twisted, and it shows the desperate lengths that this party will go to in order to further their quest for political power.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Karl Rove, the former top strategist for President George W. Bush, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie formed the Super PAC American Crossroads. The five members of American Crossroads‘ leadership staff have all worked for the Republican National Committee and almost all worked for President George W. Bush. #

The campaign ad — which features a young Hispanic woman getting out of bed — continues, “I’m worried, for our jobs, our home, the high price of everything. I look at my kids and I worry about their future. I supported President Obama because he expressed himself so well, but since then things have gotten worse.” #

She adds that there is higher unemployment, Medicare benefits will be reduced, we have an enormous national debt and Obama wants to increase taxes and spend more. She concludes there has to be a way to stop Obama from writing more blank checks. #

The ad directs viewers to the English-language nomoreblankchecks.com, supported byCrossroads GPS, whose leadership has also worked for George W. Bush or the Republican National Committee. #

The British newspaper Guardian reported this week: #

The unprecedented new ad campaign, sponsored by American Crossroads, the funding group developed by Bush presidential mastermind Karl Rove, is the clearest indication yet that America’s fastest-growing voter group is re-emerging as a critical 2012 battleground, with Latino voter swings in battleground states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada and even New Jersey increasingly likely to determine whether President Obama wins a second term. #

The Guardian adds that, “the close involvement of newly elected Latino Republicans like New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez – the first Latina governor in US history – in the creation of the Crossroads ads are one reason they’re so good.” #

The Guardian also highlights that “Martinez did quite well with Latinos last November, as did other GOP Latino hard-liners like Marco Rubio in Florida (who won 57% of the Latino vote). But it’s not clear if such support will transfer to non-Latino Republicans, including the eventual GOP nominee.” #

Watch the ad in full: #

Rove, who served as a senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, made the comments Tuesday during an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

HH: Now I want to switch to politics, Karl Rove. Is it a concern of yours that Team Obama, headquarted up there in Chicago, will attempt to influence its activists to participate in Republican caucuses and primaries to help pick the Republican nominee, and perhaps select someone who is not as strong as another candidate might be?

KR: I think they’ve got to be careful about it, because if they suddenly try and do that behind the scenes, that’s one thing. But if they’re as ham-handed as they are in everything else, it’s going to boomerang badly. And my sense is these people don’t know how to do subtle. They sure know how to do boomerang. So if they do that, they’ll be in trouble.

HH: Now you remember when Rush did Operation Chaos…

KR: Yeah.

HH: And he was quite out front about it. You don’t worry about that in New Hampshire and Iowa?

KR: Well first of all, they don’t have anybody who has as big a voice and an influence as Rush Limbaugh. I mean, who the heck is Jim Messina for gosh sakes? I mean, so, and they could send out a little email and so forth and try and encourage people, but I think a lot of Democrats would just find it distasteful to participate in Republican primaries unless they’re union steward, or a shop steward told them to do so.

Messina, who previously served as chief of staff for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), helped run Obama’s successful 2008 presidential campaign. With the exit of Rahm Emmanuel, Messina has switched from his deputy chief of staff position to that of reelection campaign manager. Only weeks ago Ari Berman of The Nation published a scathing report of Messina, labeling him as responsible for nearly every controversial move made by the Obama administration, and questioning what damage a 2012 campaign with Messina at the helm could do for Obama’s reelection chances.

Although local Republicans (as well as some 2008 Hillary Clinton supporters) have long mused that Obama, who hails from neighboring Illinois, played loose with the Iowa caucuses by busing in supporters during 2008 to earn his Hawkeye State win, there has never been any evidence that out-of-state supports did more than knock doors, drive supporters to caucus locations, phone bank and observe on caucus night. Regardless, such rumors have persisted, and a campaign video released in late April by the Obama campaign and featuring Messina (embedded below) has done little to quiet the speculation since it tells core supporters to “act like an insurgent campaign.”

Messina, according to Rove, might be the current messenger of such a strategy, but he isn’t necessarily a good one — or at least one as widespread known and respected as Limbaugh. Instead, Rove suggests that the best hope for Democrats, if they wish to engage in such a risky strategy, is to engage labor union leaders — perpetrating an ongoing GOP myth that the only reason Republicans have not been able to claim majorities across the nation is because working class Americans have been allowed to negotiate for better pay, working conditions and benefits; and that the end result of such organizing luxuries are the forced filling of Democratic candidates’ coffers.

The report, “Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections,” found that “White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections.”

The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources for campaign purposes.

But the report found that the OPA, under the direction of Karl Rove, repeatedly violated the Hatch Act. In one instance, the OPA singled out former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and the Secretary of the Interior indicated he wanted to assist his campaign for governor in 2006:

On October 20, 2006, former OPA Director Sara Taylor sent an e-mail to several OPA Associate Directors informing them that Secretary Dirk Kempthorne “Wants to help Taylor, Pombo and Gov. Pawlenty.” North Carolina Representative Charles Taylor was seeking reelection in 2006 and was listed as a “Tier 1” priority on OPA’s target list. Similarly, California Representative Richard Pombo and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty were up for reelection in 2006. Former DOI appointees testified that when Secretary Kempthorne expressed a desire to help elected officials in 2006, they interpreted it to mean he wanted to help those individuals with their reelection efforts.

While that OPA email only indicated support for Pawlenty’s reelection, former Rep. Mark Kennedy got a huge boost from Bush’s cabinet members. Bush’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Alphonso Roy Jackson, visited Minnesota to campaign for Kennedy on Oct. 12, 2006.

“The event was designated as political on Secretary Jackson’s Confidential Schedule and Travel Order Request and Authorization,” the report noted. “Specifically, the Secretary’s Confidential Schedule reflects that on October 12, 2006, Secretary Jackson was to participate in approximately 45 minutes of official activity and one hour of political activity, thus obliging the Kennedy campaign to bear financial responsibility for over 50 percent of the total travel costs.”

The fundraiser was listed as completed by Bush’s OPA and by HUD and was listed as 91 percent official and 9 percent political, instead of the 50 percent split that should have been taken by the campaign and the federal government. The report’s authors asked the department about the discrepancy.

In response, HUD acknowledged that the Kennedy campaign actually owed 57 percent of the total trip cost, or $542.46, as opposed to the $85.85 previously assessed. However, HUD has provided no evidence showing that the balance owed for Secretary Jackson’s political travel has been sought or received by HUD. Therefore, U.S. Treasury funds apparently were used to finance Secretary Jackson’s political activity in violation of the Hatch Act.

The event in question was held in Minneapolis to discuss “housing, homelessness and other issues affecting new and low-income Americans.”

The Bush White House also dispatched USDA Secretary Mike Johanns for a lunchtime fundraiser for Kennedy in Lake Crystal, Minn., on Mar. 23, 2006, and again for a political townhall and fundraiser on the Iron Range on Oct. 24, 2006. But according to the report released on Monday, there’s little record that the government was properly reimbursed for the event.

In the margin of both bills submitted to the Kennedy campaign for the expenses incurred by Secretary Johann were the words “Payment Unknown.”

The reports authors concluded, “This failure to ensure timely reimbursement of U.S. Treasury funds that were used for political activity was a violation of the Hatch Act.”

In yet another instance, the report found that a visit by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt on Oct. 27, 2006, in Minneapolis, didn’t appear to be billed to the Kennedy campaign at all. Despite being a political fundraiser, the trip was classified as “official,” the report states.

“However, the documentation provided to OSC by HHS regarding the Secretary’s October 27, 2006, travel to Minnesota indicates that the trip was classified as official, despite his attendance at a political fundraiser,” wrote the report’s authors. “In fact, the ‘remarks’ sections of the Secretary’s Traveler Authorization and Travel Voucher identified the official purpose of the travel as ‘Value Driven Healthcare.’”

The Office of Special Counsel concluded, “Failure to determine what percentage of U.S. Treasury funds was used to pay for political activity, and ensuring that those costs were reimbursed to the Treasury, was a violation of the Hatch Act.”

The involvement in Kennedy’s campaign was a small part of a much larger effort to turn an official government office, funded by the taxpayer, in to a political war room for the Republican Party.

The report’s authors identified numerous instances where campaign coordination occurred. Among the findings were that Bush’s office “worked with the RNC to develop a ‘target list’” of Republicans facing a close election. It also engaged in “asset deployment” by encouraging Bush’s political appointees — including cabinet members — to attend events with GOP candidates “in order to attract positive media attention to their campaigns.”

The office also used RNC Desk Coordinators “to help coordinate high-level political appointees’ travel to both political and official events with Republican candidates.” And the office kept track of GOP candidates’ fundraising numbers, tracked appearances by high-level appointees at campaign events, and, on behalf of the RNC, recruited political appointees to “participate in 72-hour deployment efforts.”

Though Mark Kennedy enjoyed unprecedented campaign assistance through Bush’s use of taxpayer money, he lost his race against Amy Klobuchar by a landslide in November 2006. Klobuchar won 58 percent to 38 percent.

Following Kennedy’s defeat, he would soon become a political appointee himself when President Bush named him to the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiation in 2007.

So far, the Office of Special Counsel has been mum about why the report came out more than four years after the violations occurred, but according to Politico, the report may have been blocked by another Bush appointee, former Office of Special Counsel Chief Scott Bloch, who was convicted of concealing information from a House panel.

While the report specifically lists fundraisers and appearances by Bush appointees for Kennedy, most Minnesota Republicans received some help from Rove’s Office of Political Affairs.

In 2006, Pawlenty got visits from Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, HHS Secretary Leavitt, and USDA Secretary Johanns. Rep. Michele Bachmann was the beneficiary of visits from Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Interior Secretary Kempthorne.

The report’s authors don’t fault the candidates for the fact that public money was used to promote their campaigns by the Bush administration — the onus is on political appointees to reimburse the government for their political activity.

“If the campaign or political party does not timely reimburse the government, then the exempt employee will be billed for the outstanding amount because political activity is tantamount to personal activity,” the authors wrote.

The full 118-page report can be viewed at the Office of Special Counsel.

Among the donors spotted at the conference on Tuesday, the second day of the three-day gathering, were former Stride Rite chairman Arnold Hiatt, hedge fund financier Donald Sussman, electronics pioneer Bill Budinger, real estate developer Wayne Jordan and Suzanne Hess, the wife of real estate mogul Lawrence Hess.

There was no sign of some of the deepest-pocketed Democracy Alliance members, such as tech entrepreneur Tim Gill, insurance magnate Peter Lewis, or billionaire financier George Soros, though Michael Vachon, a Soros representative, did attend.

The conference itself featured mostly big picture analyses of the midterm elections and their predicted impact on the donors’ favored policy causes,rather than strategic planning for the 2012 elections, sources told POLITICO. And – despite the tens of millions of dollars in independent advertisements aired in 2010 by GOP allies attacking Democratic candidates – Democracy Alliance is not formally recommending its donors contribute to any outside groups that focus primarily on election advertising.

Indeed, despite that fact that Democrats were outspent by outside groups on electoral advertising in the 2010 midterms by a big margin, they’re still divided on the question of the right approach to take leading up to 2012. One of the reasons is that the Democracy Alliance was founded in 2005 in the wake of an election in which outside left-leaning groups spent heavily and still lost the presidency. The idea was to take a new approach that would challenge the right’s “intellectual infrastructure” — think tanks like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation — by creating institutions like the Center for American Progress to influence policy and media debates.

Now that they’ve been outgunned on the airwaves and trounced at the ballot box, some donors are getting restless and looking to create a political spending outfit to rival the network of right wing groups that revolve around American Crossroads and political operative Karl Rove. The meeting ended without any resolution to direct spending through any new group of this nature.