The Congressional Leadership Fund plans to “counter efforts on the left including the House Majority PAC, unions and the ACORN style groups. This is an independent expenditure fund focused solely and exclusively on maintaining and expanding the Center Right Congressional majority,” according to its website.

Coleman currently heads the American Action Network (AAN), a conservative non-profit that spent at least $18 million for Republican candidates or positions in the last election cycle, according to Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW).

The group’s board includes other members of the American Action Network like former Minnesota U.S. Rep. Vin Weber and AAN President Brian Walsh Politico reports.  Last year, CREW asked the IRS to reconsider the American Action Network’s non-profit status due to its political activity.

The new organization is planning a fundraising event featuring Republican leaders from both houses of Congress on Nov. 2, according to CBS.

A ruling by the Federal Elections Commission this summer allows federal candidates to directly raise funds of up to $5,000 for Super PACs. Democratic congressional leaders have already adopted a Super PAC, the Majority PAC.

Due to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Super PACs are unburdened by disclosure requirements and can accept unlimited donations. The groups are increasingly influential in the political system, having already spent $2.5 million in this young election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“His advice will be critical as I lay out my vision for improving our economy at home and strengthening our partnerships around the world,” a statement on Romney’s campaign website read.

Coleman said Romney is the right candidate for this “important moment in our nation’s history.”

“Whether it is turning around our struggling economy or maintaining our relationships with international allies, the next President must have the experience and leadership to keep America strong at home and abroad,” Coleman said. “Electing someone who has not been tested by the fire of experience results in failure. The last three years have proven that.”

Coleman, who is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that Romney had the best position on Israel of any Republican candidate.

Coleman served as Minnesota U.S. Senator from 2003-2009. He failed in a bid against Sen. Al Franken in the 2008 election.

Coleman currently serves as chairman of the American Action Network (AAN), a conservative non-profit that spent at least $18 million in support of Republican candidates or positions in the 2010 election cycle, according to campaign finance records compiled by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW). Former Minnesota U.S. Rep. Vin Weber also sits on the board of the group, and has also endorsed Romney.

Coleman’s organization has attracted criticism for its use of a non-profit status that doesn’t require the group to disclose donors. CREW, a watchdog group, wrote a letter to the IRS asking them to reconsider the American Action Network’s non-profit status because of its political activity.

In August, the AAN spent about $1 million sending out ads and mailers on Medicare that Factcheck.org found were misleading. In 2012, the National Journal reports the group expects to spend in the “high tens of millions.”

Cravaack has also picked up support from Rep. Michele Bachmann who has given Cravaack thousands from her PAC as well as her email list. Currently, three DFLers are vying for the nomination to take on Cravaack in 2012.

Coleman hosted the fundraiser on Friday along with Rep. Erik Paulsen. “The morning after becoming a Congressman, Chip Cravaack woke up with a target on his back after taking a long time Democratic Congressional District from Jim Oberstar,” the event invite reads.

Coleman’s American Action Network (AAN) PAC has backed Cravaack. In early August, Coleman’s AAN bought ads in the Duluth News Tribune support of Cravaack. AAN had listed Cravaack as vulnerable and is supporting his campaign.

AAN has been a target of government watchdog groups because of its political activity. Earlier this year, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the groups. CREW alleges that AAN spent more money on supporting Republicans and defeating Democrats than is allowed for a 501(c)4 organization.

Coleman isn’t the only high-profile politician to be lending Cravaack a financial helping hand. Michele Bachmann’s MICHELLE PAC has given Cravaack $5,000 so far this cycle and her campaign gave Cravaack its fundraising lists.

Cravaack leads the early race with $268,000 on hand at the end of the second quarter. DFLer Tarryl Clark had $132,000 by the end of June and Jeff Anderson, who had just entered the race in the 2nd quarter, had $3,500. Rick Nolan entered the race early in the third quarter, so no fundraising numbers are yet posted for him, although he’s earned a number of high-profile endorsements.

“Some places require an ID to cash a check at McDonald’s; if it’s good enough for McDonald’s it should be good enough for one of the greatest privileges that democracy affords, and that’s the right to vote,” said Coleman.

Republicans at the Minnesota Legislature have also made similar claims that voting is like buying alcohol, cigarettes or plane tickets.

The interviewer pressed Coleman about his race with Franken and alleged voter fraud, but Coleman balked a bit. “I’m not complaining about my race,” he said, later added, “ACORN didn’t support a lot of Republicans and we’ve seen a lot of about fraud.”

He added, “My race was decided by 301 votes; ACORN registered 43,000 people in Minnesota.”

The Texas Independent, which covered the weekend’s conference, quotes Coleman as saying he still believes “there remain serious questions about how the recount was conducted.”

“The American Action Network and Sen. Coleman have every right to work to elect more Republicans, but they can’t violate the tax laws to do it,” CREW’s Melanie Sloan said in a statement announcing the complaint. “No one is exempt from following the tax laws. If a group wants to take advantage of privileges like protecting the identity of donors, it has to follow the obligations that go along with that. Here, that would mean spending the majority of resources on activities unrelated to political campaigns. AAN didn’t play by the rules.”

CREW stated that when AAN applied for a nonprofit certificate from the IRS, it stated the primary purpose of its activities would be advocating for economic and national security policies with only a “minor portion” of its activities being political. AAN also told the IRS it only planned to spend $2.5 million in 2010. Instead, it spent $18 million supporting or opposing candidates.

Much of the activity was in the form of advertisements attacking Democrats over health care reform and urging them to vote against health care reform, even though the bill had already passed when the ads were bought and no further votes were pending.

“[T]he timing of the advertisements was not related to any scheduled vote on repealing health care legislation,” the complaint reads. “The House went into recess at the end of September, and no votes were scheduled on H.R.4903 or any other bill repealing the health care law.”

One such advertisement was against Rep. Tim Walz in the amount of $275,000.

The complaint also says that AAN coordinated its campaigns with other Republican groups:

“Just weeks after the IRS granted AAN section 501(c)(4) status, AAN began, at the behest of Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, coordinating with American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other outside groups seeking to influence the 2010 elections.”

And Coleman’s status as a party leader and his recruitment of high level Republicans also demonstrates AAN’s political nature, CREW told the IRS.

“In fact, most of AAN’s officers and directors are Republican party leaders, fundraisers, former members of Congress, and/or former aides to Republican presidents or congressional leaders,” the complaint said. “These close ties to Republican leaders further support the need for the IRS to conduct an investigation to confirm CREW’s conclusion that AAN’s primary purpose is political activity.”

CREW is asking the IRS to investigate AAN’s 501(c)4 nonprofit status, which allows nonprofits to engage in political activity but only if it constitutes a minor portion of the organization’s activities. CREW stated that a big problem with AAN is the independent expenditures created by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

“Citizens United put a for sale sign on every ballot box across the country,” said Sloan. “It is time for Congress to act and put this genie back in the bottle. Elections should be won by the candidates with the best ideas, not by innocuous sounding groups funded by anonymous donors with secret agendas.”

The speculation over Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele’s future with the group will come to an end tonight. At 7:30 p.m. EST, he is scheduled to speak with members of the RNC during a conference call. Fox News’ sources indicate that Steele will announce that he will not seek a second term during the call, but the chairman has remained coy about his decision. The next RNC chair will be selected when the organization’s members meet in the middle of January.

Steele’s two years as chairman of the party been filled with both positives and negatives for his image. In terms of results, Steele has overseen two of the most successful years for the GOP; when he took the helm in early 2009 the party was in a state of crisis after Barack Obama swept Democrats to wide majorities in both chambers of Congress, but the GOP regrouped in 2010 and won historic margins in Congress for the midterm elections.

At the same time, Steele himself has been plagued by a continual series of gaffes that distracted from his other work, and the party closes 2010 with its future weighed by over $15 million in debt. Though the RNC chairman is not selected by any form of popular vote, rank and file Republicans have turned against Steele. Almost half of Republican voters would oppose Steele if he ran for the chairmanship again according to a recent poll.

A host of other candidates are already in the race no matter what Steele announces Monday night. Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus is projected as an early front runner. He has already wrapped up the support of Wisconsin’s GOP and is backed by influential Mississippi Gov. and former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour. Also among those running: former Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis, Gentry Collins who was the RNC’s political director until he resigned last month with a scathing letter against Steele, and former RNC co-chair Ann Wagner.

Those currently running have fairly low public profiles, much like Steele before he won the chairmanship in 2009. That could come back to haunt the party, though, as these individuals’ past ties will be subjected to greater public inspection if they win the chairmanship. Anuzis, for example, has defended Young Americans for Freedom, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center termed a hate group over its white nationalist statements.

If suspicions that Steele will not run again are confirmed, other possible candidates may be willing to enter the race. Former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman has been speculated about as a possible candidate earlier this year. He recently stated that he would not oppose Steele but did not deny his interest in running if the current chairman steps aside. Coleman — who helped found the conservative nonprofit American Action Network after he lost his Senate election in 2008 — would likely have the highest name recognition of any candidate if he chooses to run.

Mike Duncan, Steele’s predecessor as RNC Chair and current chairman of American Crossroads, is weighing whether to run for his old position. American Crossroads was the biggest outside player in the 2010 midterm elections, becoming a symbol for undisclosed spending after Citizens United. Duncan would be a major player if he puts his hat into the ring. The RNC chair is primarily responsible for party fundraising, so Duncan’s success leading American Crossroads would augur well for his ability to lead the RNC out of its debt problem as they seek to reclaim the White House in 2012.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) campaigns for Tom Emmer on Oct. 30 in Anoka, Minn. (Minneapolis Star Tribune/ZUMApress.com)

Haunted by memories of the 2008 Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Minnesota is bracing for yet another contentious recount, this time to determine the state’s next governor.

Just as the drawn-out recount in 2008 had national implications — for months, Franken was prevented from becoming the key 60th Democratic vote in the Senate — a delayed decision on the 2010 gubernatorial race would have wide repercussions at both the local and national levels. The state legislature, which flipped to the GOP on Tuesday, could quickly pass conservative bills while the likely Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, waits in limbo. All the while, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty finds himself in a unique posturing position before his probable bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

[Congress1] After all precincts reported their totals on Wednesday, Dayton, a former U.S. senator, held a narrow 43.63 percent to 43.21 percent lead over his Republican opponent, state Rep. Tom Emmer. Tom Horner, a third-party candidate running for the Independence Party, drew 12 percent.

With only 8,856 votes separating Dayton and Emmer, media outlets have held off on calling the race, and so far neither candidate has declared victory or conceded defeat. Vote tallies are unofficial until the State Canvassing Board meets on Nov. 23. Counties will examine their vote totals, and the final numbers could still shift before that date, but as long as Dayton and Emmer remain within 0.5 percent of each other, the state will automatically conduct a recount, likely starting on Nov. 29.

The term for the next governor is scheduled to begin on Jan. 3. If the recount drags on past that date, the constitution calls for the current executive to remain in office. Pawlenty issued a press release Wednesday affirming that he will stay in the governor’s office until a new governor is sworn in. “My administration is fully committed and prepared to accomplish the swift and orderly transition to the next governor as soon as a final determination is made,” the release said. “As required by Article V of the Minnesota Constitution, I will continue to serve as Governor until a new governor takes the oath.”

While the gubernatorial election remains in limbo, Republicans took over both sides of the state legislature this week. Pawlenty faced a hostile Democratic legislature during the entirety of his eight years in office. At times, Democrats held veto-proof majorities, forcing Pawlenty to settle for a limited form of his ideological goals during his tenure. If the final decision on certifying the next governor drags into 2011, Pawlenty and state Republicans could rush through numerous pieces of conservative legislation, allowing the governor to add accomplishments he can tout to the Republican base when he hits the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire next year.

*****

It is unclear exactly how long a recount could last, but the Coleman-Franken scenario from 2008 offers insight into the process. The state declared Franken the initial winner after a hand recount of votes lasted seven weeks. Reforms to the election process and lower turnout in the midterm contest should make for a quicker recount in 2010, likely three to four weeks, according David Schultz, a professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul.

If that’s the case, the outcome should, theoretically, be known before the end of the year, just in time for the next governor to take the oath on schedule. However, as in 2008, it is not the recount itself but rather subsequent lawsuits that could drag out the final result for months. If the losing candidate chooses to file a lawsuit challenging those results, the state Supreme Court chief justice appoints a three-judge panel to review the complaints. That decision can then be appealed to the state Supreme Court, the highest point it could reach in a state-level election.

Following the 2008 recount, Coleman continued filing lawsuits up the ladder challenging Franken’s victory. The three-judge panel did not make its decision until April 2009, and the Supreme Court’s final ruling did not come down until the end of June, when Franken was finally allowed to assume his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Differences between the current gubernatorial results and 2008 may shorten that judicial window. Unlike the few hundred votes that separated Franken and Coleman, Dayton’s nearly 9,000-vote lead should prove difficult for Emmer to overcome in the recount.

On Wednesday, Jay Weiner, journalist and author of “This Is Not Florida: How Al Franken Won the Minnesota Senate Recount,” detailed changes in Minnesota election law since 2008 that should streamline the process in 2010. “Key among the changes: Absentee ballots this time ’round were viewed and accepted by centralized absentee ballot boards in each county,” Weiner wrote. “No longer did tired poll workers late at night have to quickly determine if absentee ballots followed the various guidelines. Also, signature mismatches, an element in the Senate recounts election contest trial, have been eliminated.”

*****

Even if continuing the recount through lawsuits would be unlikely to change the results this time around, the Republican Party has every reason to extend the process for as long as possible if Dayton appears likely to win. The state party has already taken an aggressive public posture on the recount that indicates it is willing to see the race through.

“The stakes are enormously high in this one, much in the same way they were enormously high with Franken and Coleman,” said Schultz. “I see the same political motives for filing the challenge.”

At a GOP news conference on Wednesday, state GOP Chairman Mark Sutton pushed back against claims that Dayton’s substantial lead constituted a victory. “We’re going to pursue this until we’re absolutely certain that all the votes were counted correctly,” he said.

The state party has hired Washington lawyer Michael Toner, who was the general counsel for the 2000 Bush campaign, an indication that it may already be eying a post-recount lawsuit. “It looks like it’s recount part two,” Sutton said. “And this time it’s personal.” (Toner directed questions to the communications director for the Minnesota Republican Party, who did not return an email seeking comment.)

“This is the exact same rhetoric they were using two years ago,” said Schultz. “They’re starting off with similar strategy … which is to claim voter fraud.” Republican claims of voter fraud were bolstered on election night when Hennepin County, which houses Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs, made a tabulation error and reported too many votes. That mistake was corrected and accounted for, bringing Emmer’s results closer to Dayton’s, but state Republicans have continued to point to it as an indication that Emmer could further close the vote gap.

*****

Would Pawlenty be willing to push conservative bills through a Republican legislature during litigation even if Dayton continues to hold a solid lead in the vote totals? The governor’s communications director did not respond to requests for comment, but in a press release from Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC, the governor praised the Republican state victories.

“The historic nature of this victory cannot be overstated,” Pawlenty wrote. “For the first time since legislative races were partisan, Republicans will now have majorities in both the state House and Senate. This is a great validation of our work over the last eight years to cut spending and keep a lid on taxes.”

Pawlenty’s statement is in line with other Republican attempts to frame the legislative victories as a governing mandate granted by voters even if the party loses the gubernatorial race. If party officials truly view the results in those terms, they would likely feel justified pushing their agenda while they still have a friendly face in the governor’s office.

“There may be powerful incentive for the Republicans to want to enact and do things very, very quickly during that time period,” Schultz said. “Get a budget passed, do all kinds of stuff when they’re guaranteed of having a Republican majority and a Republican governor.”

Pawlenty has said he will make a decision on his presidential campaign sometime during the first quarter of 2011; he chose not to seek a third term so that he could begin building his campaign infrastructure and spend more time in early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. An extended recount would delay his ability to implement those plans, but it would also allow Pawlenty to build his conservative legislative credentials in ways previously blocked by a Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Traditional Republican priorities of lower taxes and conservative social policies would likely be among the first issues addressed. Pawlenty often touts his record of not raising taxes in a liberal state when he visits national media outlets. The opportunity to enact a major tax cut — especially corporate rates that a Gov. Dayton would be unlikely to lower — may be too tempting for Pawlenty to pass up. One idea floated in the past that may surface again is a taxpayer bill of rights, which would essentially only allow Minnesota taxes to be raised if they are put to a popular vote.

Pawlenty and the legislature may also seek to codify a ban on same-sex marriage. Such a move would play well among the base in Iowa, one of the states Pawlenty has invested in most heavily as he eyes 2012. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost retention votes on Tuesday after state and national conservatives campaigned against them for their votes in ruling bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Pawlenty praised Iowa’s ouster of the judges, and passing legislation against same-sex marriage in his own state would add credibility to his statements when he speaks to the Republican base.

One issue that would immediately confront Pawlenty if he stays in office past his scheduled exit date would be an opt-in to a federal Medicaid assistance program. As part of the national health care reform legislation, Minnesota has the option of gaining extra federal Medicaid aid by increasing state enrollment. That would require the state to spend an extra $188 million, but the state would be expected to gain $1.4 billion of federal assistance in return. Democrats support the opt-in, while Republicans are opposed. During the budget session last year, the two sides struck a deal: Pawlenty had the option of opting-in last year –- which he declined -– and the next governor would be presented with the same choice when he or she assumed office. Dayton campaigned on taking part in that federal program, but the next governor would have to make that decision by Jan. 15, leaving the choice in Pawlenty’s hands if lawsuits prolong the election.

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter for The American Independent.

But how likely is the kind of drawn-out recount and court case that we saw in Minnesota last election cycle? Rob Richie, the Executive Director of a FairVote, which advocates for electoral reform that increases turnout and fair representation, shares the numbers from a forthcoming report conducted by the group that studied every recount between 2000 and 2009. He concludes that the chances are pretty slim:

* A meaningful statewide recount took place once out of every 262 statewide elections in the 10 years of elections from 2000 to 2009: 11 out of 2,884 races. (That would be consistent with just one meaningful recount in U.S. Senate races taking place in this period.)

* Seven additional recounts occurred because of automatic recount laws or requested recounts. Of the 18 total statewide recounts in 2000-2009, the average change in victory margin was 0.027%, or 296 votes.

* Three of these 18 recounts (and three out of the 11 meaningful recounts) resulted in a change in outcome –that’s one out 961 statewide races in this period.

In other words, FairVote calculates that a meaningful statewide Senate recount like Franken-Coleman occurs only about once a decade, while a Senate recount that results in a change in outcome should occur far less frequently than that. With all the allegations of votes being mishandled, miscounted, forgotten or fraudulent, the average change in victory margin during a recount (.027%) seems like a stunningly small figure — and a rebuke to those who allege the current system is rife with either fraud or error.

On the other hand, the study probably didn’t account for the once-in-a-blue-moon credible write-in challenge being posed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska’s three-way Senate race. If the results remain close up there, the ballot counting will likely drag on for weeks or months and legal action could easily be right around the corner.

* “In 2008, Norm Coleman was ahead on Election Night by over 700 votes.”

That’s true, but, as with all elections, late arriving ballots and math errors always change Election Night tallies. Only in close elections are we aware of such shaking out of ballot tallies. When the official recount began, Coleman led by 215.

* “Soon, additional ballots were discovered, over 300 of which should have been disqualified as they appear to be have been cast by convicted felons.”

That’s not true. Additional ballots weren’t “discovered” anywhere. And where does the “300″ number of convicted felons come from? Do Democrats only win close elections by fraud? That’s the implication.

* “Yet, Franken was declared the winner by 225 votes out of nearly 2.5 million cast.”

Off a bit. He won by 312 with more than 2.9 million cast.

As for the convicted felons claim, Weiner explains that while it’s not without any merit, it’s most likely overblown. It originates from an allegation made by a conservative group called Minnesota Majority, which recently alleged that thousands of felons cast ballots in the 2008 election:

Not so, said the county prosecutors who examined the Minnesota Majority’s lists. So far, in the state’s largest counties, which include Minneapolis and St. Paul, a total of about 80 felons who are still on probation and who are barred from voting in Minnesota, have been charged. Not all have been convicted. Across the state, there are handfuls more, it seems, not hundreds.

Franken won by 312 votes. There’s no indication there were anywhere near that many who may have registered or voted illegally. Plus, what makes the Republicans think felons only vote for Democrats? In the first such case revealed about the 2008 election, the illegal voter admitted to casting his vote for Coleman.

While the AFF claims a broad mission “to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint,” the Times notes that its activities have often appeared more like advocacy on behalf of the ethanol industry:

Among the first politicians it supported with advertising was Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota and a co-chairman of the Senate Biofuels Caucus, during his losing 2008 re-election campaign.

Later that November, it focused on an unexpected target: the Indy Racing League.

In a radio advertisement, the fund attacked a deal the racing association struck to power Indy cars with sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, portraying it as a slight to American producers.

The campaign may have seemed odd for a group promoting free-market principles. But days earlier, ethanol executives, including Mr. Rastetter, had met with racing officials to unsuccessfully demand that they abandon the Brazilian deal.

These days, the group has widened its scope, attacking Democrats in several states on broad issues like the stimulus and health care reform. But, again, the Times notes that a pattern of going after Democrats who serve on panels related to ethanol is easy enough to make out:

Of the 14 “liberal” politicians singled out in a list it released last month, nearly every incumbent sits on a panel with a say over energy or agriculture policy. Five sit on the Agriculture Committee; four others are on related committees with say. One candidate was a staff member on a related panel.