“It’s an interesting idea, except for the fact that it’s illegal,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit group working to eliminate the influence of corporate money in elections.

Under current FEC rules, a traditional PAC is allowed to have a separate segregated account for unlimited contributions if the funds are spent on independent expenditures — making it a so-called hybrid committee.

But Democracy 21 says that because a Leadership PAC uses its independent expenditures to directly support candidates, and is sponsored by a lawmaker, it cannot accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals.

“The answer to this question is open and shut: the federal campaign finance laws clearly and unequivocally prohibit the Leadership PAC of a Member of Congress from soliciting or receiving unlimited contributions,” said Wertheimer.

He also pegged the advisory request as the most recent tactic in the fight against campaign finance regulations: a “throw everything you can think of against the wall and see what sticks” approach.

Lee’s Constitutional Conservatives Fund is “dedicated to the cause of finding, funding, and supporting conservative candidates” and is currently actively endorsing for Republican Senate candidates in states around the country.

A lawyer for the PAC argued in the advisory request that the Constitutional Conservatives Fund’s interest in accepting unlimited contributions wasn’t a “particularly novel or unique” request.

“The Constitution simply does not permit the government to suppress free speech by restricting the right to make contributions to Independent Expenditures,” said Dan Backer, the lawyer for Lee’s fund.

But in a statement, Wertheimer said he was confident that the opinion would not be decided in Lee’s favor. “It is very hard to see  how even the dysfunctional FEC can figure out a way to emasculate the campaign finance laws in this case,” he said.

“Question One,” a Fly on the Wall production directed and produced by veteran journalists Joe Fox and James Nubile, covers the period beginning after the Maine Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in May 2009 and ending just after Maine voters overturned the law in November 2009. Where “Question One” differs from “8: The Mormon Propo$ition,” the documentary about a similar campaign to defeat same-sex marriage in California in 2008, is its attempt at neutrality. Fox and Nubile embedded themselves in both the “Yes on 1” (for the proposition to stop gay marriage) and “No on 1” campaigns, getting the respective sides of the stories.

“I still can’t get over that [we were] given access to do this thing,” Fox recently told The American Independent over the phone from the Fly on the Wall headquarters in New York City.

In September 2009, Fox and Nubile rented a house in Maine, and by the end of the referendum campaign had more than 250 hours’ worth of footage, Fox said, along with a story told cinema verité-style about how same-sex marriage was won, fought and lost in Maine -– complete with developed characters and plot twists.

One of the characters at the center of those twists is Marc Mutty, director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the former chair of Stand for Marriage Maine Political Action Committee (SMM). The film begins with Mutty describing his role in the campaign as that of the “chief cook and bottle washer,” but in the campaign’s final weeks, it’s Frank Schubert, president of California-based Schubert Flint Public Affairs -– the same publicity firm used to defeat same-sex marriage in California in 2008 –- who is calling all the shots, telling reporters he’s the chairman of SMM, making himself marketable for a future anti-same-sex marriage campaign.

At one point in the film, Mutty admits to being upset over two ads pushed by Schubert Flint, which Mutty admits “when I saw it, I cringed,” because of their insistence that same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to teachers instructing first-graders about gay sex. The longer version of the ad, which Mutty opted not to use, discussed sex toys. In the car, a visibly frustrated Mutty tells Schubert in clipped tones that his staff signed off on the ad. He then slams his cell phone shut and mutters, “So Frank wins the day again.”

In another scene, Mutty admits he didn’t have a better campaign strategy than the one devised by Schubert Flint.

“In order for me to resist, I had to have a different plan, which I didn’t,” Mutty tells the camera. “I certainly could have devised a whole way of approaching this that was very different. But do I believe it would have won for us? No.”

“The least likely character is someone like a Marc Mutty,” Fox told TAI. “He was sort of like a gift from the gods, in every way. … I always thought he felt like he had made a pact with the devil but he would come out okay. I think he underestimated the intensity of this issue, and I think he underestimated the force he was dealing with the Schubert Flint. It was clear he was outmatched.”

On screen, Mutty says he never wanted to run the “Yes on 1″ campaign, but that his boss, Bishop Richard Malone, wanted the diocese to handle it, and Mutty felt as though he had no choice. In the early days of the campaign, he jokes around with his small staff in their Yarmouth, Maine, headquarters and appears to take his position — one he describes as being “impossible” — in stride. But by the campaign’s end, Mutty often appears agitated, saying things like: “This has been a mother-f***ing son of a b*tch.”

In April, Fox and Nubile released the trailer of their completed “Question One,” including a clip of Mutty telling his staff: “We use a lot of hyperbole, and I think that’s always dangerous. We say things like, ‘Teachers will be forced to–’ Well, that’s not a completely accurate statement, and we all know it isn’t.” Off camera someone from his staff says, “No, we don’t say that,” to which Mutty responds, “Let’s look back at our ads and see what we say, and I think we use hyperbole to a point where it’s like, ‘Jeez.’”

Following Portland Press Herald columnist Bill Nemitz’s April 17, 2011, column about Mutty’s comments in the documentary — “Documentary clips show sad face of Yes on 1“ – the paper published a guest editorial attributed to Mutty on April 24, 2011, titled “Yes on 1 campaign worthwhile.”

In the editorial, Mutty declares his full support for “the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.” He goes on to characterize himself as a longtime civil rights defender, writing, “I have always been a strong and tireless advocate for the civil rights of all, and have fought unjust discrimination in all its forms. Fairness in housing, fair employment practices and the right to vote are all civil rights. Redefining marriage is not.”

In a recent telephone interview, Mutty told TAI that he was “very upset” by Nemitz’s column and that the clip that served as the centerpiece of the article was “misleading” and taken out of context. Mutty’s story is that the clip was part of a 20-minute strategy session during which he was playing devil’s advocate in order to force his staff to defend their advertising.

“Oh, puh-leeze,” Fox told TAI, in response to Mutty’s claim that his “hyperbole” comment was taken out of context. “To that I say, come see the context, which I’m pretty sure you [Mutty] don’t want to see because it would make things worse. … There was a constant self-doubt about [the tactics of his campaign]. It was not a standalone comment. I think a reasonable assumption is that he had to defend himself [to the diocese].”

But it wasn’t just the “Yes on 1″ campaign’s “hyperbolic” tactics that appear to visibly stress out Mutty in the documentary; it also it appears as though Mutty’s team is often losing. Their polling and fundraising are always below what the “No on 1″ side is reporting. Fox told TAI that Mutty often appeared worried because promised bundles of “Mormon money” never materialized; however, that footage did not make it into the final cut. Additionally, the amount of bustle and enthusiasm coming out of the “No” side — headquartered in Portland, Maine, and run by EqualityMaine chair Jesse Connolly, Executive Director Betsy Smith and field director Darlene Huntress — seems to be at a much higher level than that coming from the “Yes” team, which is often portrayed as being disorganized and nervous.

Throughout the course of the film, it appears that the race is going to be neck and neck. The actual result — 53 to 47 percent — is not so close and seems to shock everyone but Schubert, who declares victory in the late hours of Nov. 3, 2009 — without consulting Mutty — even before all the precincts have been counted.

“They needed a figurehead,” Fox says of Mutty. “It was quite clear that there wasn’t much happening on the local front. No decisions were being made from the [Yes on 1] headquarters in Maine.”

“In a way that’s sort of very telling,” he continued. “The appearance that was created and stage-managed was that this was a locally run effort. In point of fact, it was Schubert Flint in California in conjunction with NOM [the National Organization for Marriage] that were basically running the campaign.”

Mutty told TAI he was anxious to see the film and said he had found the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign frustrating, but not for the reasons that the film suggests.

“Campaigns such as this referendum are, by far, not the best way to have public discourse over sensitive issues,” Mutty said. “It’s frustrating to do in-depth discussing geared to sound bites.” When asked what a better format for this type of social discourse would be, Mutty said “any way but this one.”

Fox said he hopes Mutty will be satisfied with how he is portrayed on screen.

“The way he was portrayed publicly wasn’t fair to him,” Fox said, referring to how some people called Mutty a bigot for heading this campaign. “I think he agreed in part to [participate in this documentary] because he wanted, in his own way, to get his side of the story out. And I think he comes across as being very sympathetic. You kind of could understand the situation he was in.”

“Question One,” is due to be theatrically released in September, first in select theaters in Maine.

Watch the trailer:

Stand for Marriage Maine PAC led the successful campaign to repeal gay marriage legalization in Maine in 2009 by popular vote in a People’s Veto.

Both sides of the Maine marriage campaign are beginning to prepare for a potential referendum in 2012; yet questions linger surrounding donor identities in the 2009 campaign, particularly for the side that supported “Question 1,” which repealed same-sex marriage.

Question 1 opponents, led by EqualityMaine, raised approximately $5.7 million from more than 10,000 donors, 12 times more individual donors than the winning side, which raised approximately $3.4 million from a handful of churches and conservative Christian organizations, according to a November 2009 report (PDF) released by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The largest chunks of donations that went to the repeal effort came from NOM ($1.9 million), the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland ($500,000) and Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee ($114,000).

The American Independent recently reported that NOM is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices over whether or not NOM should have registered with the state and formed a ballot question committee — which means disclosing expenditures and contributions. That case is pending in the First Circuit Court. And last week, the United States Court of Appeals First Circuit ruled against NOM in an appeal that Maine’s election laws were unconstitutional. Thus, the investigation into NOM’s fundraising is presently stalled, and many of the names and organizations of those who donated money to defeating marriage equality in Maine are still unknown.

Openly gay political consultant and GOP presidential contender Fred Karger sparked the NOM investigation, having made it his ongoing project to follow NOM’s campaign money since the organization’s anti-same-sex-marriage campaign efforts in California in 2008. But it is straight, married activist Paul Kendrick who made it his mission to follow the actions of the Portland diocese. What immediately sparked his interest into the “Yes on 1″ campaign of 2009 was the fact that money was coming out of the Roman Catholic Portland Diocese, but there were very few individual contributions from church leaders.

“There are about 700 priests, nuns and deacons in the diocese, yet only four names appear on the reporting,” Kendrick recently told TAI from his home in Freeport, Maine. “What can we surmise? Can we surmise that what Bishop [Richard Joseph] Malone did, priests and deacons don’t support this? Did they all donate $49 dollars? … [Catholic leaders] were advertising themselves as followers of God but didn’t have the guts to stand publicly for their convictions,” Kendrick said.

The Stand for Marriage Maine PAC was run by Portland diocese public affairs director Marc Mutty, who took a leave of absence from the diocese to run the campaign. Mutty told TAI that, to his knowledge, the church followed all campaign-finance rules with regard to its contributions to the SMM PAC. He said that any contributions made without a name attached to them came from plate collections. Fallout criticisms about how and how much the diocese donated were based on general disapproval that the diocese participated in the political campaign, Mutty said.

“We don’t operate based on public opinion,” he said. “We operate based on what is the right thing to do. Public sentiment is not so much an issue.”

Quarterly campaign-finance disclosure reports from 2009 available on the Maine ethics commission’s website reveal several names of religious figures from across the country who donated more than $50 (the donating amount at which point an individual’s name must be disclosed, according to Maine’s election laws) to the SMM PAC; however, individual names from the Portland diocese are scarce. For the reporting period between July 6 and Sept. 30, 2009, only Father Paul Marquis of the Portland diocese is listed as having contributed $100. During that reporting period, the Portland diocese reportedly contributed about $345,000 to Stand for Marriage Maine in 16 payments, ranging from $200 to $149,300.

Aside from monetary and staff contributions, the Portland diocese has been painted as having had significant influence on the results of the 2009 campaign.

In a National Catholic Register article titled “Marriage Victory in Maine,” from November 2009, Joan Frawley Desmond laid out how the church wielded its influence.

The defeat of same-sex “marriage” at the polls in Maine Nov. 3 suggests that Portland Bishop Richard Malone’s “commonsense” message resonated with the state’s relatively secular voters.

[…]

Testifying before the state’s legislature in August, Bishop Malone described same-sex “marriage” as “a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. … Children will be taught in schools that same-sex ‘marriage’ and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid”

Mutty said he’s not sure what type of role the diocese will play in a future marriage equality campaign, if marriage equality advocates are able to collect the required 80,000 signatures to put the question on the ballot in 2012. Mutty’s currently drafting recommendations to the bishop as to how much money the diocese could potentially donate and if staff members should participate.

“This is a very difficult time financially for most people,” he said. “The diocese is certainly experiencing difficulties in this economy.”

Regardless of how the church might be involved next year, Mutty told TAI he will not be running the campaign as he did in 2009, saying the campaign was “extremely taxing on my health, psyche and family.”

Future fight over marriage in Maine

In August 2009, when Karger initially asked the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices to investigate the campaign-fundraising activities of the organizations that helped end same-sex marriage in Maine, he accused Stand for Marriage Maine of being a “front” for NOM, an accusation that was rejected by both organizations at the time.

Presently, however, it appears that NOM is maintaining control over the SMM PAC.

Asked who will be chairing Stand for Marriage Maine in a potential referendum campaign next year, former SMM PAC treasurer Joseph A. Keaney told TAI to ask Brian Brown, NOM’s president and SMM board member.

“[NOM] contributed the most to Stand for Marriage Maine, by far –- almost $2 million,” Keaney said.

Keaney has been listed as SMM’s treasurer on every campaign disclosure report filed between Sept. 2009, when Stand for Marriage Maine initially registered as a PAC, and the most recent report, filed July 2011. Yet the Portland, Maine-based certified public accountant said he is not sure he will continue as the PAC treasurer if a referendum moves forward. First off, he said he has not been asked yet. If he is asked to participate in the campaign, he said, it will depend on what arrangements are made, noting that he was paid for his work on the first campaign.

Brown did not immediately return TAI’s request for comment.

The EqualityMaine PAC is representing the preliminary efforts of a potential campaign to restore marriage equality in Maine next year by putting a voter referendum on the ballot. Thus far, EqualityMaine has only filed $25 in campaign contributions for 2011. Stand for Marriage Maine on the other hand has filed a $32,411 contribution from NOM and a $25 contribution from an unknown source so far this year.

EqualityMaine spokesperson Timothy Rose remains confident that his organization will be able to gather the requisite 80,000 signatures to put the question –- currently phrased as, “Do you support marriage licenses for same sex couples while protecting religious freedom?” — on the ballot. Currently, the question language is in for review with the secretary of state, but Rose said the group hopes to begin the process of collecting signatures this week.

Rose said that what marriage equality advocates in Maine learned from their failure in 2009 was that it is impossible to change hearts and minds during a campaign. Instead, EqualityMaine has been working to change hearts and minds before a potential 2012 campaign, by talking one-and-one to voters. Rose said that two independent polls conducted in 2009 and 2011 show that Maine citizens support legalized marriage for gay and lesbian couples by 53 percent.

“[We] made a commitment to the LGBT community that we wouldn’t bring the question up again until we were statistically certain [it can pass],” Rose said.

What’s critical, he said, is to make sure identified marriage equality supporters make it to the ballot box. Having the referendum during an election year will help in that effort, he said.

Senate Bill 1282 will create a statue explicitly allowing any religious assembly or institution to speak out on political issues without having to register as a political action campaign, provided the organization “does not spend a substantial amount of time or assets, within the meaning of section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, on influencing any federal state or local legislation, referendum, initiative or constitutional amendment. ”

The content of the bill is pretty sparse, opening up a broad interpretation for “substantial amount.”

Regarding federal tax-exempt rules, the IRS states:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

The Center for Arizona Policy, which helped craft the bill’s language along with Senate sponsor Steve Yarbrough, has posited this bill as free-speech legislation. In its fact sheet on the proposed law, the group lists the following talking points:

• The First Amendment protects the rights of churches and religious leaders to speak out on public issues. This bill simply clarifies that campaign finance laws do not apply to speech by churches on issues of public importance that are being considered as ballot measures.
• Churches have the right to speak about the critical issues of our time. This bill protects that right by bringing Arizona into compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling.
• This bill protects churches from government intrusion into their religious practices and message. Government officials should not be monitoring a pastor’s religious speech from the pulpit to determine whether it is “too political.” This is excessive entanglement of the government with religion and is not constitutionally permissible.

Brewer also signed the following bills Monday:

SB 1169 – Clarifies that the board of nursing cannot allow nurse practitioners to perform surgical abortions.

SB 1188 – Requires marital status “to be considered” in adoption placements — establishing a preference for children to be adopted by a married man and woman, “when all relevant factors are equal.”

Other CAP-supported bills waiting for Brewer’s signature include:

• SB 1030 – Clarifies that physician assistants cannot prescribe medication intended to induce abortion.
• SB 1472 & 1482 – Requires online publication a judge’s biography and rulings on constitutional issues in judicial-retention elections

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.”

Gallant is an associate at the firm of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. The firm’s head, James Bopp, Jr., is the conservative lawyer behind much of the turmoil in election law these days: he argued the Citizens United case at every level up to the Supreme Court, for instance. The firm is currently arguing approximately 50 cases around the country for NOM and other groups that center around the issues of nonprofit organizations, political speech, and their First Amendment rights in the wake of Citizens United.

In short, Gallant told me, groups like NOM, which are registered as 501(c)4 “social welfare organizations” and not political committees, are making the case that states are acting unconstitutionally by compelling them to register as political committees (PACs) when they decide to spend money on elections. The brief that NOM filed on September 14, argues as much; however, it is 42 pages long and full of legalese, so I asked Gallant to explain it a bit.

The first claim NOM makes in its brief is that the group’s “injury is the chill to speech caused by Defendant’s prospective enforcement of Rhode Island law or prosecution of NOM,” and that, therefore, “NOM has standing to seek relief from the chill.” It seems a little odd for the group to claim injury based on the State of Rhode Island potentially enforcing its laws and prosecuting NOM in the future, but Gallant argues that such claims — called “pre-enforcement challenges” — actually aren’t that odd at all:

“That’s typical. It’s what’s called a pre-enforcement challenge and its often recognized in First Amendment contexts in which an organization is faced with either doing its speech and being charged by an enforcement agency or holding off on its speech  The speech is said to be ‘chilled’ and the organization can seek relief with a preliminary injunction.”

Another important claim in the brief is that “The Rhode Island Law is Vague, and therefore Overbroad.” Vague and Overbroad, again, are legal terms of special significance, explains Gallant:

“In a First Amendment context, vagueness is a special concern. If a group or individual doesn’t know if what they want to do is regulated, then they take a wide berth around it… Overbreadth is when the law sweeps in conduct or communications that cannot constitutionally be regulated.”

“An organization can’t be swept into the political action committee regulatory scheme unless its either under control of a candidate or its major purpose is the election or defeat of a candidate [NOM is neither]. The communication itself may be regulable — in other words it may fall under a constitutionally proper definition of an expenditure — but a lot of states, based on that, sweep the organization itself into regulation as a political committee and you can’t do that.”

Basically, NOM is testing the waters in a number of states, challenging state laws that place restrictions on corporations spending in state elections after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that they have a right to do so. In that same ruling, however, the Supreme Court upheld current federal disclosure laws 8-1, so NOM’s claim that it shouldn’t be compelled to disclose its donors to state election boards seems like it’s on more shaky ground.

In the wake of Citizens United, and later, SpeechNow.org v. the Federal Election Commission, the FEC issued advisory opinions this summer that said political groups making “independent expenditures” — political spending for or against a candidate that’s crafted and funded entirely independent of a candidate or party — are allowed to collect unlimited contributions from corporations or individuals, but should register with the FEC as a political action committee and detail their finances, if they plan to do so. Some groups, like American Crossroads and Club for Growth, signed up, while others, like Americans for Job Security, said ‘thanks, but no thanks.’

It all relates back to the aftermath of 2004, when 527 groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had spent like mad during the election but hadn’t registered with the FEC as political action committees (and therefore hadn’t submitted themselves to the restrictions and disclosure requirements entailed in the designation). The Campaign Legal Center and other campaign finance and elections groups filed complaints with the FEC arguing these organizations were effectively skirting the law, and in response, the FEC made some new rules.

In an “Explanation and Justification” of its rules governing electioneering communication (or EC — essentially, political TV or radio ads run just before an election), the FEC determined that they could require disclosure about two kinds of donations — “funds received in response to solicitations specifically requesting funds to pay for ECs” and “funds specifically designated for ECs by the donor.” In other words, if a group received money in response to a solicitation that advertised their spending on electioneering communications, that money would be regarded as a “contribution” — an important designation that meant it would most likely have to be disclosed.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United earlier this year, it freed up limits on independent expenditures by corporations* but it didn’t necessarily change present disclosure laws. That was accomplished, instead, by a different ruling late last year, in which a federal appeals court decided in a case brought by EMILY’s List to strike down the “solicitation” regulation the FEC had drawn up.

In response to that court’s decision, the FEC got rid of the first requirement for disclosure (“solicitations specifically requesting funds to pay for ECs”) and keeping only the second (“funds specifically designated for ECs by the donor”). As a result, the conventional wisdom is that if a 527 group or 501(c)(4) group wants to keep their political spending in the dark, all they have to do is direct the donor to not specify what specific purpose their donation should be used.*

Some argue the FEC still has some legal leeway to compel these groups to disclose more about its EC spending — it’s just being timid about doing so. Others, however, maintain that it’s bound by the current law and, unless the courts or congress change things, there’s not much more the FEC can do — nor it there much more organizations should feel like they have to do.

*Update: An earlier version of this post said Citizens United vs. FEC freed limits on corporate campaign contributions. Instead, it freed independent expenditures on campaigns by corporations. An earlier version also said groups can avoid disclosing their expenditures through the use of separate funds. Instead, it can do so by directing their funders to not specify the purpose of their donations.

As an additional side note, legal scholars point out that the FEC could easily make a new rule, without the help of congress, to counteract the current avalanche of undisclosed electioneering communications. Partisan gridlock on the commission, however, makes the chances of such a scenario quite unlikely.

Doyle notes how the initial two groups, conservative Club for Growth and Democratic-leaning Commonsense Ten, have been joined by about half a dozen others — including the already notorious Rove and Gillespe 527 group, American Crossroads — in registering in the last few weeks as “independent expenditure committees” that will collect unlimited amounts of money for campaign spending. Disclosure reports show the Club for Growth has received a total of $75,000 from just two donors, for instance.

But not all these groups are planning on registering as PACs, and many continue to spend thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars on campaigns without listing any donors:

[T]he American Action Network filed an independent expenditure report with the FEC Aug. 5 indicating that it is spending nearly $435,000 for cable television and radio ads in the New Hampshire campaign for an open U.S. Senate seat. The report listed no donations funding this spending.

The ads in question target Senate candidate Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) for his stance on climate change legislation. They’re not the only ones the group has cut, though. Again, according to Doyle’s report:

The American Action Network has indicated on its website that it also sponsored ad campaigns focused on Senate races in Washington state and Florida; however, it filed no reports with the FEC on its spending in those states. The group indicated in press releases that it considered its efforts in these races to be “issue advocacy” not subject to any FEC reporting rules.

As he reflected on the arguments of a potential campaign, Gingrich mused, “I think that the three questions are: who are we [as a country], what do we have to do to compete successfully with China and India, and what threatens us and how do we stay safe?” If a GOPer could effectively organize a campaign around those themes, Gingrich said, “You’d be a [Ronald] Reagan or bigger majority coming together to say, ‘Yep, that’s the direction I want to go in.’”

Ronald Reagan’s majority or bigger! No one’s going to chasten Gingrich for his lack of self-confidence. I’ll just point out that Gingrich remains a fairly unpopular politician, a fact that his omnipresence in the Beltway and on Fox News sometimes obscures.