You may have noticed something funny around here lately: political cartoons.

Rob Tornoe, a political cartoonist based in Delaware,is now drawing original cartoons for The Center, based on our stories. You'll see his work pop up on publicintegrity.org, our Facebook page and on Twitter. Tornoe also draws cartoons for The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Press of Atlantic City, Media Matters and Philadelphia NPR affiliate WHYY, among others. You can follow him on Twitter, and Facebook, too.

We asked Rob a few questions to get to know him a little better:

When did you first know you wanted to be a political cartoonist?

Rob: During college, I worked at the local daily paper in town building ads and doing layout. Every so often the editors would let me draw local cartoons for the op-ed pages, and that was the first time it dawned on me that I could turn my love of politics and drawing into a career. Once I started, I was hooked.

So, if you weren't a cartoonist, you'd be a . . .?

Rob: No sure. I have a business and accounting degree of all things, so I guess I'd be a comptroller working for some company counting down the hours until I could retire. Or maybe I would have been a forensic accountant.

Anything — or anybody — off limits in your work?

Rob: Nothing is off limits per se, besides what normal decency would allow. But I do try to exercise caution around controversial subjects, like religion. I don't mind slamming religious groups or individuals if I feel they deserve it, but I wouldn't draw a cartoon mocking religion just for the sole purpose of mocking it. There would have to be a greater underlying point behind it.  

Take us through the “how.” How do you come up with ideas? Do you write the words or draw the images first? How many revisions? How long does it take?

Rob: Everyone always wants to know "how." Honestly, there's no single way. Sometimes a great idea comes to my head right away. Other times, it's a struggle that involves reading about a subject, figuring out all the ins-and-outs that I could play with visually, trying to find the humor, etc.

I tend not to go with the first idea I come up with, since that's the one other cartoonists (and readers) thought of first, too. I always try to dig down to the next layer, and to inject humor into my cartoons. That's not to say political cartoons can't be serious — I just find a funny, thoughtful political cartoon to be quite effective in conveying a message.

Unlike many cartoonists, I still prefer to draw on paper with brushes, pen and ink. Then I scan it and do all my coloring and corrections on a computer before sending it off to editors. Technology has been a dual-edged sword — it's harmed the revenue of newspapers, who happen to employ the large majority of political cartoonists in the country, yet it has afforded me opportunities I would have never had 10 years ago.

Who’s easier to satirize — Republicans, Democrats, Tea partiers, Green Party-ers?

Rob: Even though the tea party really makes it easy at times, they're all equally as goofy and incompetent. I have drawn plenty of cartoons criticizing Obama, and the duo of Romney and Ryan appear as though they'll be cartooning gold during this election cycle.
 
What do you read, watch or listen to everyday?

Rob: I read The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and listen to NPR in the morning. Throughout the day, I'll switch back and forth between MSNBC and Fox News and read countless websites and blogs (but unlike Sarah Palin, I'm unable to read them all). I also love social media sites like Facebook, Reddit and Twitter — they help get a sense of what people are talking about and what stories are emerging.
 
Does your work reflect your own opinions, or does it attempt to reflect popular opinion?

Rob: They are all my opinion. I try to comment on topics that are relevant to readers or part of the broader policy discussion, but the opinions of all my cartoons are my own. I find drawing political cartoons is a lot like boxing. Boxers don't swing as hard as they can with each punch — it's a delicate balance of lighter jabs punctuated by one power uppercut.

Do you think political cartoons have the power to influence voters?

Rob: Well, they certainly have the power to help inform them. Cartoons work well in our over-saturated media environment because they're quick to consume, visual and in your face. They work equally well across all devices, and good ones spread like wildfire across social media. I try to add humor to my cartoons, because I find it has a disarming quality that allows my opinion to permeate better.

I always wondered why political consultants or media websites didn't hire more cartoonists. After all, we're trained since we were kids to read the comics, and while it's easy to throw away that mailer or gloss over a 700-word editorial, people tend to be drawn in by the quick, powerful message of a cartoon.

 
 

Dark-horse presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode may not be household names, but with a little help from super PACs, they could peel away precious support from Republican Mitt Romney and possibly even President Barack Obama in some key state races.

The conservative Constitution Party, which seeks to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations,” has nominated Goode, a former congressman from Virginia, for president, potentially taking votes away from Romney in what has become a presidential swing state.

Meanwhile, Johnson, a former two-term GOP governor of New Mexico who failed to win the 2012 Republican presidential nod, has been nominated by the Libertarian Party — a perch from which he could throw a wrench in the plans of both Obama and Romney in several swing states.

Already, at least three pro-Libertarian super PACs have registered with the Federal Election Commission to support Johnson. And former Nixon administration operative Roger Stone, famous for sporting a tattoo of the disgraced president on his back, has touted a pro-Johnson super PAC.

Super PACs are allowed to collect unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations to produce political advertisements that are not coordinated with any candidate. They were made possible in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Goode, a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and vocal opponent of abortion, served six terms in Congress — first as a Democrat, then as an independent and finally as a Republican, until he was unseated in 2008. Third-party candidates like Goode have no chance of winning the White House, but one only need look to the 2000 presidential election to be reminded of their potential impact.

When consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party’s candidate, he infamously garnered more than 97,000 votes in Florida, where Democrat Al Gore lost to Republican George W. Bush by just 537 votes. Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes secured the presidency for Bush, even though Gore won the national popular vote.

One recent poll showed Goode drawing 9 percent of the vote in his home state of Virginia, whose 13 Electoral College votes are being sought by both Romney and Obama.

Similarly, a recent poll showed Johnson — an anti-war candidate who supports marijuana legalization and smaller government — receiving 5.3 percent of the national popular vote. That makes him an afterthought as a presidential candidate, but he may still have an impact in battleground states like New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire and even North Carolina.

Third-party candidates aren’t always suggested as options in polls. But one survey earlier this summer showed Johnson winning 12 percent of the vote in New Mexico, a state that Obama carried handily in 2008, but where Bush eked out a narrow victory in 2004.

Johnson garnered 7 percent of the vote in a May poll in New Hampshire, which Obama won easily four years ago but Bush carried in 2000. Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling showed Johnson pulling 7 percent of the vote in Colorado where Obama was the first Democrat since Bill Clinton to win the state. Johnson is also polling at 3 percent in North Carolina, another swing state.

Super PAC spending on behalf of minor-party candidates like Johnson or Goode “definitely could happen,” said Rob Richie, executive director of the nonprofit FairVote, which advocates for increased ballot choice.

“Most people have made up their minds between keeping Obama or going to Romney,” Richie continued. “Some people, though, […] if they realized that there was another candidate running, might abandon one of the major-party candidates.”

Super PACs lead to more choices?

Officials with both the Obama and Romney campaigns declined to comment about whether they were concerned about the role super PACs touting third-party candidates could play in the presidential race.

Some third-party activists, though, are keen to harness super PACs — and their ability to raise unlimited funds, which they argue could increase the visibility of their preferred candidates.

“I wish we had super PACs out there supporting our candidates,” said Jim Clymer, who was the national chairman of the Constitution Party until April. He is now Goode’s vice presidential running mate.

“A couple of people who believe deeply in what we’re trying to promote could put us on the map in a way that we haven’t been,” he added. “The reality is that getting your message out takes a lot of money.”

His sentiments are echoed by Libertarian Party activists.

“A libertarian candidate like Gary Johnson doesn’t have the infrastructure behind him that the major-party candidates have,” said Austin Cassidy, the treasurer of the pro-Johnson Libertarian Victory Committee super PAC, which was formed in May.

“If voters have the chance to compare him on an even playing field that could really spark something,” Cassidy continued.

Cassidy’s Libertarian Victory Committee raised only $200 — all from Cassidy’s own pocket — before throwing in the towel earlier this month, but the pro-Johnson Libertarian Action Super PAC has raised $107,500 as of the end of June. The bulk of that money — $100,000 — came from wealthy entrepreneur Joe Liemandt, the Stanford University dropout who founded and runs the software company Trilogy.

Notably, Liemandt's wife Andra has bundled more than $200,000 for Obama's re-election efforts, and the couple alone has donated $107,400 to the Obama Victory Fund, which benefits Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Together, they have also donated more than $130,000 to the Libertarian National Committee since 2009.

Wes Benedict, the former executive director of the Libertarian Party who is now the treasurer of the Libertarian Action super PAC, stresses that $100,000 in receipts is “significant,” even if it’s dwarfed by the tens of millions of dollars raised by the pro-Obama and pro-Romney super PACs.

“In Libertarian terms, this is a big step forward,” he said. “We’re in new territory running this super PAC,” he continued. “I hope we make a difference.”

Since it was launched in April, Libertarian Action, which promotes “low-cost, high-quality Gary Johnson materials” such as yard signs, bumper stickers and door hangers on its website, has reported making more than $16,000 in independent expenditures.

Another pro-Johnson super PAC, called Freedom and Liberty PAC, has also raised $100,000, though it has yet to make any expenditures touting Johnson or criticizing his rivals. The group was founded by one-time Johnson aide Kelly Casaday, and its sole donor is Chris J. Rufer, the founder of the Morning Star Company, a California-based agribusiness and food processing company.

The super PACs file their campaign finance reports with the FEC on a quarterly basis, so it’s unknown how much money they have raised since the second quarter ended in June. A few wealthy donors could easily make them more flush with cash. At least one million-dollar contribution has been given to a pro-Johnson super PAC, according to Jim Gray, the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee.

Not all third-party activists, though, think embracing super PACs is a good thing.

“[Super PACs] are squashing competition,” said David Cobb, who was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2004. “When the wealthy elite can buy microphones and amplifiers and drown out the rest of us, it is supremely ridiculous to say that that somehow increases the competition of ideas.”

Good things or dirty tricks?

One person with the potential to make a large super PAC splash for a third-party candidate is long-time Republican operative Roger Stone.

Stone was the youngest staffer on Nixon’s infamous Committee for the Re-election of the President, the group that financed the Watergate break-in. He later went on to work with the late Lee Atwater, the strategist who managed Republican George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign against Democrat Michael Dukakis. And during the contentious Florida recount between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore, Stone was dispatched to supervise the process.

Yet, in February, Stone, who did not respond to requests for an interview, said goodbye to the GOP and registered as a Libertarian after casting a vote for Ron Paul in the Florida GOP presidential primary.

In June, the Huffington Post reported Stone was constructing a pro-Johnson super PAC.

“The American people have never been offered a candidate who is fiscally and economically conservative but socially tolerant,” Stone has said. “With Gary Johnson, you can have the best of both.”

In his writings online, Stone stresses that Johnson has the potential to perform well in many battleground states, particularly in the West — and that Johnson has the potential to win over both supporters of Obama and Romney.

Stone’s name has not yet appeared in any FEC super PAC filings, and so far, his new Libertarian Party allies are cautiously optimistic about his planned endeavors.

“Hopefully he’s up to good things and not dirty tricks,” said Benedict, the former Libertarian Party executive director.

Most political observers argue that outside groups are unlikely to change the fundamental calculus that makes a third-party presidential bid an uphill battle.

Americans Elect is a prime example, according to political science professor Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. The organization launched in 2010 with the hope of getting a centrist political candidate onto the ballot in all 50 states. The group raised more than $35 million — including $5.5 million from billionaire hedge fund investor Peter Ackerman — but it failed to find a willing candidate and has since retreated from the limelight.

“A super PAC can only sell a candidate if there's a market for him or her,” Sabato said. “I don't think there is one in this highly polarized year.”

But as Democrats learned in 2000, a third-party candidate need not be a threat to win to have an impact.

While listening to the promises to repeal ObamaCare during the Republican National Convention, I was reminded of what those of us in the health insurance industry said when our friends in Congress were able to block passage of President Clinton’s health care reform legislation 18 years ago.

Like the politicians in Tampa, we insisted then that a big government program not only wasn’t needed, but would be harmful — that what the government really needed to do was get out of the way and let the free market work.

Insurance company spokesmen like me assured the public that our then-novel managed care plans, coupled with the invisible hand of the market, would do the trick. Leave it to us, we said, and we’ll get medical costs under control and enroll every American in a good HMO.

The proponents of a pure free-market health care system hope that Americans have amnesia and can be persuaded to blame President Obama for the problems that grew almost immeasurably worse between the demise of the Clinton plan and the passage of the Affordable Care Act. They want us to believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that health insurers and the largely unfettered, loosely regulated marketplace can somehow turn things around. And that we should reward insurers for their failure by turning the Medicare program over to them.

In many respects, the free market approach to health care has indeed been just what the doctor ordered, although not for patients. We spend twice as much on health care per person as western European countries do on average. Yet, according to the Commonwealth Fund, 81 million Americans are now either uninsured or underinsured—far more than during the Clinton administration.  And with just a few exceptions, we rank well below almost every other developed country in measures of health outcomes, such as longevity and infant mortality.

There is fresh evidence almost every week that our uniquely American free market health care system continues to fail us.

Last week, in a piece about hospitals buying physician practices, The Wall Street Journal reported that patients are getting bills for doctor visits that are much higher than they were before their doctor’s medical group became part of a hospital system. Hospitals are charging more for physician services they now own just because, well, they can, thanks to the free market.

The story quoted insurance executives saying that one of the reasons insurers are raising premiums is because they’re having to pay more for physician and outpatient services as a result of this trend. And because insurers have moved millions of us into high-deductible plans, we’re having to pay more out of our own pockets, too. So we’re getting hit where it really hurts—our pocketbooks—twice.

Another reason for skyrocketing premiums: hospitals are also merging with each other to have more clout at the negotiating table with insurers. According to the health care consulting firm Irving Levin Associations, there were 86 hospital mergers or acquisitions last year. That’s compared to 75 in 2010 and 51 in 2009.

Those mergers and acquisitions not only have been enabled by our free market approach to health care, they’ve been necessitated by it. The consolidation among hospitals is accelerating because of the even more rapid consolidation in the insurance industry. The two biggest health insurers, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint, are giants because of their numerous acquisitions over the past several years. As a result of this consolidation, almost every metropolitan area in the country is now dominated by just one or two big insurers.

It has become a kind of arms race between hospital systems and insurers, and there are no signs that it will end anytime soon.

There was other fresh evidence last week that patients do not benefit from these trends. In a study published in Health Affairs, researchers reported that Americans younger than 65 (and not yet eligible for our single-payer Medicare program) are more likely to die because of a lack of timely access to affordable, effective care than people in the same age group in the single payer systems in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. For men, the preventable death rate was 69 per 100,000 in the United States versus 53 in the U.K., 50 in Germany and 37 in France.  American women fared a little better but not much. Especially disheartening was the fact that we are falling further behind those countries every year.

Bottom line for us: we’re paying more and more for health care but continuing to trail the rest of the developed world in access to quality, affordable care.

In a recent post on the Forbes website, free-market advocate Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute bemoaned the fact that “the dream of a single-payer system in America just won’t die.” This despite a decades-long campaign by insurers and their allies to equate single-payer systems like those in Canada and Europe with socialism and big government. Considering the many failures of the U.S. health care system, it is more appropriate to wonder why the dream of a free-market health care system just won’t die.

“There are always going to be bumps on the road to recovery,” President Barack Obama’s voice says as the camera pans over men and women lying on their backs across a dirt road.

A man in a plaid shirt rolls over. He stands up. In his hands is a sign saying, “I want a job when I graduate.”

“I’m an American. Not a bump in the road,” he says.

One by one, each person lying on the road stands up, holding a sign about unemployment, repeating, “I’m an American. Not a bump in the road.”

The new ad from the Republican National Committee seeks to hit Obama where Americans perceive his weakness to be — in unemployment and economic recovery.

Obama’s management of the economy may be the single biggest obstacle to his re-election, and more than half of Americans disapprove of his economic management, according to a poll from The New York Times/CBS.

But is this fair?

A new report from The Economist suggests that unemployment would have actually been higher without Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which Republican outside spending groups have repeatedly referred to as the “failed stimulus.”

“Conservatives say stimulus does not work,” says The Economist.  But “most impartial work suggests they are wrong.”

The magazine cites a study from Daniel Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which found that stimulus spending created or saved 3.4 million jobs, which echoes what the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

In other outside spending news:

• Again taking aim at the president’s record on unemployment, “The Poster” from Crossroads Generation, a conservative super PAC aimed at young voters, shows the evolution of the bedroom of a member of Gen Y, from crib to sports trophies to an Obama poster, while the years tick by. It ends with a 20-something tearing down the poster and telling a friend on the phone, “I’m living with my parents again. There’s just no jobs out there.”
• The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported spending $349,000 on ads opposing Republican House candidates and supporting Democratic ones. The DCCC posted four new ads last Wednesday, as the Daily Disclosure reported last week.
• House Majority PAC, which also backs Democrats running for U.S. House, reported spending $280,000 on ads opposing Republican candidates for House: Mia Love, the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, who is running in the state’s 4th District; Rep. Steve King in Iowa’s 5th District; attorney Keith Rothfus in Pennsylvania’s 12th District; and North Carolina state Sen. David Rouzer, who is running in the state’s 7th District.
• “Breaking Down” from House Majority PAC opposes Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., who is running for re-election in Virginia’s 2nd District against Democratic challenger businessman Paul Hirschbiel. The ad is part of a $140,000, two-week buy.
• Joe Coors, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Colorado’s 7th District, is the subject of “Brew,” from House Majority PAC, which criticizes him for supporting anti-abortion personhood amendments. However, on August 8, Coors’ campaign told the Denver Post that he would no longer support the initiative in Colorado since it has failed in the state twice. Coors faces Democratic incumbent Rep. Ed Perlmutter.
• The Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee reported spending $211,000 on ads opposing Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is running for U.S. Senate and against incumbent Democrat Jon Tester and on ads supporting former North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, who is running against Rep. Rick Berg, the Republican, for Senate.
• Majority PAC, which also backs Democrats running for U.S. Senate, reported spending $722,000 on ads opposing former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Berg.
• The National Republican Congressional Committee reported spending $573,000 against Democratic candidates for the U.S. House in eight races.
• The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $685,000 on ads opposing Tester in Montana and supporting Berg in North Dakota.
• Conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity bought more airtime at a cost of $2.1 million for its anti-Obama ad “New Ideas” and others, which were released earlier this month.
• “So Many Things,” a new ad, also from Americans for Prosperity, features a disappointed Obama voter. “So many things did not come true,” she says of the president’s 2008 campaign promises.
• The Republican National Committee released a new ad, “We’ve Heard It All Before,” comparing Obama’s speeches in 2008 to speeches made this year, pointing out he has made the same promises. The ad asks, “Are you better off?”
• The conservative Emergency Committee for Israel released “Paul Ryan — For a Stronger America” on Thursday. The ad touts the pro-Israel stance of Rep. Paul Ryan, the running mate of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
• Liberal super PAC American Bridge 21st Century opposes Romney in “Rubio Makes the Case” by juxtaposing clips of a speech from Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida with statements about Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.
• American Bridge 21st Century also released an ad attacking Richard Mourdock, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Indiana, for claiming to be willing to “work with Republicans and Democrats.” The ad then shows several clips of the candidate displaying his disdain for bipartisanship.  
• Florida Freedom PAC, a super PAC supporting Democratic candidates running for federal office in Florida, reported spending more than $615,000 on staff salaries and canvassing expenses supporting Obama, the re-election of Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, lawyer Joe Garcia, who is running for U.S. House in Florida’s 26th District, and Patrick Murphy, who faces Republican Rep. Allen West in a hotly contested race for U.S. House in Florida’s 18th District. The super PAC has received major support from the Service Employees International Union.
• New super PACs: Montana Growth Foundation in Red Lodge, Mont., and the Utility Workers Union of America Political-Legislative Education Fund in Washington, D.C.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — While Democrats have touted their grassroots fundraising efforts for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, deep-pocketed corporate donors are helping underwrite the event.

Among the corporate sponsors at the Charlotte convention: AT&T Inc., Bank of America, Duke Energy, Time Warner Cable, Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, UnitedHealth Group, Piedmont Natural Gas, US Airways and law and lobbying firm McGuireWoods.

The corporate sponsorship appears to fly in the face of the Democrats’ pledge to host a “people’s convention.”

The party’s 2012 “host committee” is not accepting contributions from corporations, lobbyists and political action committees. Democrats also capped how much money individuals can give at $100,000.

But the party is accepting in-kind donations from corporate firms. In addition, a second nonprofit, called “New American City” was established in May to “defray” administrative expenses and other costs. New American City does accept corporate money.

The exact levels of these companies’ financial support won’t be known until mid-October when filings will be submitted to the Federal Election Commission.

Like their GOP counterparts, the Democrats received about $18 million in public funding to finance their convention. And both parties raised tens of millions of additional dollars, funneled through nonprofit host committees that help facilitate the events.

Host committees have traditionally relied on corporate funders but top Democratic leaders — including President Barack Obama, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro — all penned solicitations aimed at small-dollar donors.

“This convention is relying on a grassroots network made up of people like you to give small amounts to help make this convention a success,” Obama wrote in one typical fundraising appeal.

A few lucky donors won trips to Charlotte and many had their names memorialized on the exterior of on a pro-Obama NASCAR stock car displayed at the convention.

When asked by the Center for Public Integrity about this fundraising experiment during a press conference Monday, Democratic National Convention Committee CEO Steve Kerrigan said it was a “huge success.”

“We’re thrilled to have done it this way,” Kerrigan said. “[We are] thrilled with the way it worked.”

Several unions were listed as sponsors, despite their displeasure with the selection of "right-to-work" state North Carolina as host of the convention.

Among them:

• Service Employees International Union
• American Federation of Teachers
• United Food and Commercial Workers
• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
• National Education Association
• United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States, Canada and Australia
• International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
• National Air Traffic Controllers Association
• United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.

In 2008, when the Democrats hosted their national convention in Denver, unions accounted for about $9 million of the approximately $63 million raised by the host committee, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal records.

That year, the SEIU, Laborers' International Union, National Education Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the American Federation of Teachers each gave the host committee between $1 million and $1.5 million, according to FEC records.

Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week’s Republican National Convention.

“The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success,” said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey.

For John Sebree, the senior vice president of public policy with Florida REALTORS, which had a role in supporting events at both conventions, the appeal of being involved as a sponsor is clear.

“Out of sight is out of mind,” said Sebree. “If we’re not there, then someone else is telling their story — and not ours.”

North Carolina’s race for governor is expected to be the most expensive in the state’s history thanks largely to two deep-pocketed, Washington, D.C.-based organizations whose underwriters may not even know how their funds are being spent.

The state is the latest field of battle for the Democratic Governors Association and the Republican Governors Association, organizations whose impact has increased thanks to court decisions that eliminated limits on campaign spending.

The two groups have spent roughly $3 million in North Carolina — nearly as much as candidates Pat McCrory and Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton combined — and have committed more to the race. Outside groups are poised to eclipse the $7.7 million record set during the 2008 governor’s race.

The state is experiencing “an advertising onslaught like we’ve never seen before” according to the Raleigh-based Free Enterprise Foundation.

North Carolina law caps donations to the candidates at $4,000 and prohibits donations from unions and corporations. But outside organizations — like the DGA and the RGA — can accept unlimited donations from virtually any source and spend the money on ads.

Those sources are tough to track. Even though the RGA is reporting the identities of corporate funders of ads, donors contacted by the Center for Public Integrity were unaware their money was being spent that way and denied having any stance on the North Carolina race.

The DGA, meanwhile, is funneling large sums through a state political committee, thus obscuring the identities of the original donors.

Things won’t quiet down any time soon. Not only is the state filling an open governor's seat, it is also a presidential swing state — one of the reasons it is hosting the Democratic National Convention this week.

Possible GOP pickup

North Carolina’s current governor is Bev Perdue, elected in 2008. With sinking approval ratings, Perdue decided not to seek a second term. Despite the long history of dominance by Democrats, prognosticators see the state leaning right. In 2010, Republicans took control of the legislature for the first time in more than a century.

RGA spokesman Mike Schrimpf told The Charlotte Observer in May that North Carolina is a “prime pickup opportunity,” and that the RGA is “committed to provide the resources to win it.”

Thus far, the RGA has spent roughly $1.4 million and reserved another $3.5 million for ads this fall. The DGA has spent roughly $1.5 million on the race.

Lt. Gov. Dalton captured the Democratic nomination in May, though he had to survive an expensive primary that left him low on funds. Filings with the state show McCrory with six times more cash as of July.

Dalton, at least, will get some national exposure thanks to the convention. A spokesman said the lieutenant governor is scheduled to speak Thursday evening at Bank of America Stadium, the final night of the event.

McCrory, the Republican, is the former mayor of Charlotte. He was the Republican nominee in 2008 and lost to Perdue in a close race.

Soon after Dalton won the primary, the RGA launched its first attacks.

A DGA-funded group responded with its own ads in May, while Dalton’s cash-starved campaign got back on its feet.

“If Dalton hadn’t had the outside help,” said Jonathan Kappler, of the Free Enterprise Foundation, “he would have been sunk.”

McCrory has pledged to disavow negative ads run by independently funded groups, but he and Dalton have no control over the RGA and DGA. Outside spending groups may not give money directly to the candidates, nor are they permitted to coordinate their spending with the campaigns.

McCrory did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Dalton’s spokesman Ford Porter called the independent advertising “an unfortunate reality” and said the Democrat’s campaign is trying to break through the “outside noise” the spending creates.

RGA spending

The RGA’s strategy has been to link Dalton to the unpopular governor, referring to him as Perdue’s “right-hand man” in advertising. It blames the lieutenant governor and Perdue for “higher taxes” and “job killing policies.” The Raleigh News and Observer said the ad distorts the truth.

Dalton was not Perdue's "running mate" — the lieutenant governor in North Carolina is elected indpendently.

The RGA is paying for the ad directly and not “funneling its money through another entity,” which is what it says its Democratic counterpart is doing.

“This is a case where the RGA is truly being much more transparent than the DGA,” wrote Schrimpf in an email to the Center.

Instead, the RGA is reporting funders of its ads to the state board of elections. According to paperwork filed with North Carolina election authorities, the ad was paid for by 38 out-of-state corporations to the RGA — among them, a $75,000 contribution from insurance giant AFLAC.  

The fact that AFLAC’s donations were used to pay for an ad attacking Dalton was news to the company, according to spokesman John Sullivan. Of the donation, $25,000 was meant to be used for “2012 convention sponsorship,” he said.

The RGA says it reserved the right to use the “sponsorship” money for any purpose it chose, including the ads in North Carolina.

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce was also unaware that its donation was going toward ads attacking a sitting lieutenant governor 900 miles away.

“This is the first I’ve heard of it,” said Steve Baas, director of governmental affairs at the Milwaukee business association, “but it’s not a shock to us.”

Baas said he trusts the RGA’s spending decisions with the association’s $150,000 contribution.

While Baas may be OK with it, the use of the donation raises legal questions.

“We appreciate and welcome disclosure whenever possible,” said Kim Strach, deputy director of campaign finance at the state’s Board of Elections, “as long as it’s accurate.”

No limits

Corporations and unions can give $4,000 to candidates from their PACs that draw on small donations from employees. But donations to the RGA and DGA are unlimited.

AT&T gave McCrory $2,000 from its PAC in April. The next month, it gave a $250,000 check to the RGA. General Electric gave $105,000 to the RGA in May, more than all of its PAC donations to all North Carolina candidates in the last decade combined.

None of the corporate funders of RGA’s ads contacted by the Center said their companies had declared a favorite in the race for governor.

General Electric pays a “membership fee” to both governors associations, according to spokeswoman Helaine Klasky, “to enable GE to participate in a wide range of activities sponsored by the DGA and RGA.”

Klasky adds that GE does not direct money toward specific campaigns.

The company’s Citizenship Report says GE has a “long-standing practice against using corporate resources for the direct funding of independent expenditures expressly advocating for or against candidates.”

AT&T did not respond to calls, but has supported both major parties and its candidates for governor in North Carolina for a decade. IRS filings show the company gave $100,000 to the DGA in 2012, less than half of what it gave to the RGA.

In fact, of the 38 corporations and organizations that have pitched into the RGA ad effort, 15 have also given to the DGA this year — including GE, AT&T, AFLAC, Altria, and the Milwaukee Chamber.

The RGA’s largest donor from North Carolina, Duke Energy, gave $175,000. The company, which is a major supporter of the Democratic convention, also gave $200,000 to the DGA.

Disclosure in the dark

The RGA, meanwhile, is criticizing its counterpart for not being as forthcoming with the state’s voters.

The DGA-funded entity is a Raleigh-based organization called North Carolina Citizens for Progress. The group has no formal affiliation with the DGA and has a separate board that makes spending decisions and solicits money.

The DGA is the main donor to North Carolina Citizens for Progress, giving 93 percent of the $2.1 million the group raised this year, according to IRS reports.

The cash infusion funded two controversial ads accusing McCrory of “questionable ethics” during his time as mayor of Charlotte.

The DGA and the RGA are 527 groups, named for the section in the IRS tax code that regulates them. The groups report donors and donations to the IRS as well as expenditures, including contributions to other organizations.

The DGA avoided listing specific funders of ads it financed by giving the money to the local PAC.

In addition to the DGA contribution, the National Education Association’s super PAC, funded by the nation’s largest public employee union, chipped in $144,000 toward the race.

“I have no idea where our money came from, beyond the fact that it comes from the DGA or the NEA,” said Michael Weisel, spokesman for North Carolina Citizens for Progress, the pro-Dalton group.

While it weathers criticism for its lack of transparency, the DGA-funded ads are attacking McCrory for refusing to release his tax returns. A spokesman for the DGA said it is “proud” to support the efforts to “expose Pat McCrory’s failure to release his tax returns and other financial interests.”

The DGA said it is “transparent about who our donors are and what they have given, and we regularly report that information."

Courts change playing field

The RGA and DGA have played an increasingly significant role in the state thanks to a series of Supreme Court rulings beginning in 2007, which have eroded North Carolina’s ban on corporate and union money in the state.

The Wisconsin Right to Life decision in 2007 cracked open the door to corporate funding of ads that mention a candidate but stop short of telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate. So far in North Carolina, the DGA and RGA are funding ads of this type, which do not ask people for their vote.

If the 2007 decision opened the door, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling blew it off its hinges.

The high court said corporate and labor donations to outside spending groups are legal — including organizations that ask voters to support or oppose a particular candidate. The decision led to the creation of super PACs which have played a major role in federal elections.

“We had entities spending millions in the state’s gubernatorial races before Citizens United, using various vehicles,” said Bob Hall, a longtime director of the state’s election watchdog group Democracy NC. “But now, more entities are stepping up to spend money as though the Supreme Court has blessed the whole enterprise.”

History of enforcement

North Carolina’s Board of Elections has investigated the previous two Democratic candidates for governor, and has also taken up long battles with outside spending groups.

“Groups from both sides have been complained about,” said Strach, the state agency’s veteran campaign finance director.

The RGA ran afoul of the elections board during its unsuccessful attempt to unseat Democrat Mike Easley in 2004. The board demanded that the RGA pay a penalty of $196,000 for violating state limits on corporate contributions.

But the RGA appealed and in 2005 an administrative law judge reversed the board’s ruling. The RGA acknowledged that its ads in the state were funded through an account that commingled corporate and individual contributions.

In a letter to the State Board in 2004, the RGA’s lawyer wrote that “determining which sources of funds were used … is an impossible task,” as contributions to the RGA were never earmarked for specific use.

Furthermore, the RGA argued that its “major purpose” was not as a North Carolina PAC, and therefore it was not subject to the state’s contribution caps.

In 2008, the board held a lengthy hearing about the fundraising and spending by several outside groups including the RGA and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

Election watchdog Democracy NC, which filed a complaint which prompted the hearing, claimed that the RGA was listing donors “who had no idea their money was going to a North Carolina PAC or was being used to impact a North Carolina election.”

The state-appointed board ultimately ruled 3-2 that the RGA and other outside spending groups had broken no rules.

Any ambivalence about what’s OK and what’s not is gone now.

Before the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling “there were lots of groups that were nervous about getting involved, who were being told by their lawyers, ‘that’s too messy,’” said Hall.

Today, he says, the environment is far more inviting. And the state’s disclosure laws fail to “give the public a chance to understand who is backing some engine of advocacy.”

Strach says both RGA and DGA “are finding ways to mask disclosure,” but the Citizens United decision makes the board’s decade of investigations largely moot.

“I don’t think those questions are relevant anymore,” she said. “If a group wants to make independent expenditures of any kind, the roadblocks are no longer there.”

Amid a flurry of nasty ads released yesterday, one stands out for its … cuteness.

“Short Leash” from the Democrat-aligned super PAC Majority PAC is an attack ad starring a puggle (a designer breed of a pug and beagle mix) aimed at North Dakota Rep. Rick Berg, a Republican running for U.S. Senate against former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp.

“Rick Berg talks big in North Dakota but does what he’s told in Washington,” the narrator says, while the obedient pup pants happily in front of the Capitol.

The ad goes on to detail the ways in which Berg has voted the party line, including on Medicare, and asks, “Do we really want a senator on a short leash in Washington?”

Majority PAC has hit Berg before on some of the same claims listed in “Short Leash.” At least four other ads from Majority PAC claim Berg voted to “cut Medicare.”

Berg has in fact voted with his party on all major issues this Congress, according to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database, but the Medicare claims are a little more complicated.

Each party accuses the other of seeking major Medicare cuts: Democrats criticize the cost-saving measures in Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, and Republicans criticize those in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Berg did vote in support Ryan’s budget plan, which includes turning Medicare into a “premium support” plan in which Americans choose from a variety of private insurance plans and the government pays a set amount in premiums, according to Politico. The plan saves money by introducing competition among providers and limiting how much the government will subsidize seniors’ costs, according to Politico and Forbes. The Democrats are correct that Berg voted to cut Medicare.

The Republicans are also correct. The Affordable Care Act also makes cuts (or saves money, depending on the point of view), which come mainly from changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals and doctors, according to the Washington Post.

The issue is not who voted to cut Medicare. It’s how they will cut Medicare. And that tends to be too complicated to explain in a 30-second television ad.

Majority PAC has received major financial support from top donors who include James Simons, founder of hedge fund giant Renaissance Technologies, Fred Eychaner, the CEO of NewsWeb Corp., and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.  

In other outside spending news:

• "Diner" from Patriot Majority USA opposes Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, for saying he would do anything Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, asked of him. Latham faces Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s new 3rd District.
• A wave of ads is airing this week in Charlotte, N.C., the site of the Democratic National Convention. “Are you better off?” asks the Republican National Committee. The answer, according to the RNC, is “no.” The RNC also released a second ad in Charlotte featuring a speech from former President Jimmy Carter playing over claims about Obama’s record on economic recovery.
• Also in North Carolina, a super PAC run by evangelical conservative Gary Bauer began airing an anti-gay marriage ad. The Campaign for American Values PAC's "New Morning" features a wife telling her husband, "Obama is trying to force gay marriage on this country."
• Conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity is also targeting voters in North Carolina and a handful of swing states with an ad aimed at the Affordable Care Act. The ad tells the story of a dying Canadian woman who came to the United States for medical treatment because "Canada's government-run health care system was failing her."
• “Janesville” from conservative nonprofit American Future Fund uses a quote from Obama during his 2008 campaign about a Janesville, Wis., General Motors plant being able to stay open for another 100 years with government assistance. The plant closed before Obama took office, but Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan nonetheless seemed to fault Obama for breaking his promise, Factcheck.org and several other news organizations pointed out. Ryan stands by his statement, made at the Republican National Convention last week, saying that he was not actually blaming Obama for the plant’s closure but merely pointing out that he has broken promises.
• The Senate Conservatives Fund's new ad, “Stop Brown,” attacks Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, for supporting the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus and other Democratic initiatives.  “He was caught failing to pay his own taxes,” the ad says. Brown admitted he was four months late paying property taxes on his Washington, D.C., condo this year, saying, “I misplaced the bill and I paid it as soon as I found out,” Cleveland Live reported. Records also showed he was late paying the same taxes in 2006 and 2007.
• “$16,000,000,000,000.00 ($16 Trillion)” from the Republican National Committee attacks Obama for adding nearly $5 trillion to the national debt.
• The Service Employees International Union’s PAC, SEIU COPE, released an ad opposing Republican attorney Keith Rothfus, who is running against Democratic incumbent Rep. Mark Critz in Pennsylvania’s 12th District.
• The National Republican Congressional Committee attacked Nevada state Sen. Steven Horsford in a new web video for being what it calls “one of the 10 most corrupt Democrats of 2012.” Horsford faces Republican businessman Danny Tarkanian in Nevada’s new 4th District. Horsford's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
• The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s new feel-good animated ad “Ladders” pumps up House Democrats. “We believe that it’s time to reignite the American Dream,” the narrator says. The group also reported spending $325,000 on ads opposing Republicans and supporting Democrats in five U.S. House races.
• The Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee reported spending $191,000 on ads opposing Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is running for U.S. Senate against Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester.
• The Republican Majority Campaign, a conservative political action committee, spent $150,000 on phone calls and mailers opposing Obama.
• New super PACS: Vote Your Values PAC in Washington, D.C., and The Office Fund/Tri-Cities PAC in Prescott, Ariz.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Super PAC fundraiser Paul Begala climbed atop a table and told a roomful of VIP donors that “giving until it hurts” isn’t good enough.

“I want you to give until it feels good,” he said, because it will “really hurt” to wake up Nov. 7 with Republican Mitt Romney on his way to the White House.

The high-profile Democratic operative was addressing donors at a cocktail party in downtown Charlotte Tuesday, just blocks from the convention hall where Democrats unveiled a platform that condemns big-money politics.

If elected, Romney and his fellow Republicans will “repeal the 20th century,” Begala told the room.

Begala was one of President Bill Clinton’s chief strategists and is now a top adviser to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that is seeking to re-elect President Barack Obama.

Created in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010, super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions to be used to pay for political ads.

Democrats, who are being badly outraised by Republicans in the super PAC race, have criticized them, including Begala.

“I want to live in an America without super PACs,” Begala said, shortly before announcing that Priorities USA Action had raised a record $10 million during the month of August.

Democrats have defended their reluctant embrace of the political organizations, saying if they don’t create their own it will amount to unilateral disarmament.

“If [former Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev has nuclear weapons, I want President [John F.] Kennedy to have them too,” Begala said.

Priorities, combined with two other Democratic super PACs have raised about $60 million — “brunch” for billionaire Sheldon Adelson, Begala joked.

Adelson and family have given more than $42 million to super PACs in the 2012 election aimed at defeating Democrats so far, according to research by the Center for Public Integrity

Priorities was created in 2011 by former White House aides Sean Sweeney and Bill Burton.

Democratic super PACs and nonprofits have been outraised by their Republican counterparts, Begala said.

He said that billionaire conservative brothers Charles and David Koch may spend as much as $200 million to influence the outcomes of the 2012 elections. American Crossroads and its sister 501(c)(4) nonprofit Crossroads GPS, both dedicated to supporting Republicans, have a fundraising goal of $300 million.

Begala said Democrats can “survive if we’re outspent” but not if it’s by a margin of 16-1, which is what happened to Romney’s rivals in the GOP primary races.

The party was the first of the convention hosted by “Unity Convention 2012” — a joint fundraising committee that benefits Priorities USA Action and two other Democratic super PACS: Majority PAC, which is working to help the party retain control of the U.S. Senate and House Majority PAC, which aims to help Democrats regain control of Congress’ lower chamber.

Today, Democratic super PAC donors will gather at the home of hedge-fund billionaire James Simons, as Politico previously reported.  On Thursday Unity Convention 2012 will throw a late-night celebration with Jessica Alba, rapper Pitbull and the Scissor Sisters called “Super-O-Rama” at the North Carolina Music Factory, following Obama’s acceptance speech.

The Democratic party platform released this week suggests that national security officials in a second Obama administration will attempt to leave outdated military projects behind, try to bolster the country’s international leadership, and try to control nuclear weapons materials — policies that match some but not all of the preferences expressed by members of both political parties in a May survey organized by the Center for Public Integrity.

The platform, released Tuesday, leaves plenty of wiggle room for the administration, eschewing hard numbers or strategic decisions in favor of generalities — a practice typical in platforms released at convention time that are heavy on rhetoric but light on specifics.

The 2012 platform is even more general than the Democrats’ 2008 version, which contained highly specific pledges of new aid to Afghanistan ($1 billion) and Israel ($30 billion) and called for increasing “the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops.” Instead of looking forward, the focus of this year’s document is on what the Obama administration has already accomplished. 

But it still provides a starting point to consider how Obama and his team might handle national security issues if he wins a second term. (Our look at the GOP’s platform was published Aug. 30.) While the platform does not specifically call for defense cuts, it mirrors the strategic plan laid out by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who called in January for moving away from heavy land forces and restructuring how the military spends its funds, while leaving the future defense budget mostly level.

“After more than a decade of war, we have an opportunity to retool our armed forces and our defense strategy,” to ensure “our security with a more agile and more flexible force,” states the platform.

To accomplish these goals, Panetta’s office has already proposed to increase funding for Special Forces while moving away from some traditional warfare assets. He was supported by senior military officers, including Army chief of staff Ray Odierno, who said in April he doesn’t believe “we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.” The Center’s survey, conducted with the Stimson Center and the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, found widespread public support for Special Forces, coupled with a willingness to cut spending on ground forces.

Although the Republican platform also lacked specific figures on potential increases in funding or troop levels, GOP nominee Mitt Romney has made it clear that he intends to expand national defense spending if elected in November. In the survey, however, overall cuts in defense spending were supported by voters from both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats polled supported making immediate cuts.

The average amount was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. Those numbers dwarf the threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called “sequestration” legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers from both parties have decried as devastating.

The Democrats' platform includes language promoting the country’s role abroad, not just with military force but with leadership on the international stage. Africa, Latin America and the Middle East are areas that get special paragraphs calling for U.S. support and influence. The Democrats also take a shot at Obama’s Republican predecessor George W. Bush by asserting “we have restored America’s leadership at the UN … reversing the previous administration’s disdain for the UN.”

But strong international leadership may be less popular with Americans than the party’s leaders evidently expect. Seventy-two percent of respondents in our poll said the U.S. is “playing the role of military policeman too much.”

The platform reiterates Obama’s plan to remove U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2014, which appears to be a crowd pleaser. Roughly 85 percent of the survey respondents supported a statement that said in part, “it is time for the Afghan people to manage their own country and for us to bring our troops home.” A majority backed an immediate cut of around 43 percent in Afghan war spending.

And what about the most destructive weapons in the U.S. arsenal? The platform highlights a desire by the administration to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, deployed both domestically and abroad. This stands in sharp contrast to the Republican platform, which accuses Obama of failing to modernize the nuclear arsenal and unnecessarily delaying the deployment of defenses against missiles fielded by other nations. The GOP platform echoes concerns of Congressional Republicans who criticized Obama’s New START nuclear treaty with Russia. In comparison, the Democratic Party platform offers strong support for New START and calls for further treaties with Russia and the international community.

Obama’s aides have been vague in this election year about what kind of reductions he might support in a second term, and the White House has postponed any public discussion of nuclear targeting changes widely seen as a prerequisite to a major cut. But a prominent group appointed to advise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on arms control matters has tentatively backed two options: implementing START more quickly than the treaty’s 2018 deadline, or informally deciding with Russia that both countries should deploy even “lower levels of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy.”

The recommendation, now awaiting final approval by the International Security Advisory Board including former Secretary of Defense William Perry, the former commander of the Global Strike Command, and many others -- comes with a warning that “arms control fatigue, electoral politics, and the thorny issue of missile defense have all converged in 2012, creating poor conditions for trust and dialogue.”

In the survey, members of the public showed little hesitation about making cuts in nuclear forces, however. Respondents on average favored at least a 27 percent cut in spending on nuclear arms — the largest proportional cut of any in the survey. Overall, two-thirds of those polled — 78 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents — expressed a desire to cut spending on nuclear arms.

Conservative outside spending groups are welcoming President Barack Obama to Charlotte, N.C., with a barrage of attack ads.

At least three conservative nonprofits and the Republican National Committee are running television and print ads as Obama prepares to give his acceptance speech for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte Thursday night.

The Republican Jewish Coalition attacked the new Democratic platform that removed certain pro-Israel language from platforms of years passed — some of which was replaced.

It bought $75,000 worth of ad space in the Charlotte Observer highlighting the difference between the 2008 platform and the 2012 platform. One of the sticking points — that the platform removed a statement about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel — has since been reinstated, at Obama’s insistence, albeit amid some confusion, AP reported.

The ad is also slated to run next week in Jewish newspapers in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The nonprofit American Future Fund attempts to draw attention away from what Democrats call the Republicans’ “war on women” with the ad “What’s at Stake.”

The ad, airing in North Carolina, features pro-choice women saying a woman’s right to choose is not at stake in this election — the “future of America” is. The women say that is the reason they are voting for GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan.

Americans for Prosperity takes the health care angle in North Carolina with a $5.8 million ad buy for “Replace,” which tells the story of a sick Canadian woman forced to seek medical treatment in the U.S. She says Canada’s government-run health care system failed her and that America’s current system saved her life.

Factcheck.org cites a Canadian Broacasting Corporation story in which a neurosurgeon says her condition, a type of benign cyst, is not fatal, as the woman claims, though her vision was at risk.

Spending by nonprofits on negative advertising has been ratcheting as the election looms closer. Nonprofits, unlike party committees and super PACs, do not release the names of the donors who pay for the ads.

To round out the barrage, the Republican National Committee goes after Obama on the economic recovery.

The web video “These Hands” tells the story of a struggling small business owner in High Point, N.C. She says that when she opened her new furniture store, she got more than 420 applications for five positions.

“That crystalizes, in my mind, that we’re on the wrong road,” Melanie McNamara says.

In other outside spending news:

• Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action reported spending $204,000 on radio advertisements opposing Romney.
• The RNC also released “Incomplete” and "The Breakup," which shows a young woman breaking up with a cardboard cutout of the president over dinner. There’s also a Spanish version.
• American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC, debuted “Forwards?” criticizing Obama’s record on the economic recovery, national debt and the Affordable Care Act. The group reported spending $5.8 million on television ads Wednesday.
• Crossroads GPS, the sister nonprofit to American Crossroads, released “Big Difference,” which opposes former North Dakota Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, and supports Rep. Rick Berg, a Republican, in the race for U.S. Senate. The ad cost $113,000.
• The nonprofit Center Forward, the rebranded Blue Dogs Research Forum, released “Refuse,” attacking Republican Richard Mourdock, who is running for U.S. Senate in Indiana. Murdock defeated incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar in the GOP primary.
• SEIU COPE, the political action committee of the Service Employees International Union, reported spending more than $430,000 on television ads opposing Romney.
• Conservative super PAC Club for Growth Action unleashed an $800,000-ad buy against Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who is running for U.S. Senate against tea party favorite Richard Mourdock. The ad calls Donnelly “a typical Washington liberal.”
• American Future Fund also released a web video chronicling Vice President Joe Biden’s gaffes, asking “Do you trust Joe Biden to lead?”
• The nonprofit League of Conservation Voters reported spending $250,000 on field campaign consulting in opposition to Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who is faces stiff competition from Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat. Warren spoke at the Democratic convention last night.
• The Michigan League of Conservation Voters launched an ad opposing the re-election of Rep. Dan Benishek of Michigan’s 1st District. “Progress” criticizes Benishek’s record of opposition to the Clean Water Act and supports former Michigan state Rep. Gary McDowell, Benishek’s Democratic challenger. The ad debuted Tuesday and cost $364,000, FEC filings show.
• A new ad with a very descriptive title opposes Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is running against Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester. The ad, from the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee, is called “Denny Rehberg wants higher taxes for us and lower taxes for millionaires like him.”
• "Chris Gibson: One of The Crowd" from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee opposes the re-election of the Republican congressman in New York's 20th District. Gibson faces Democratic attorney Julian Schreibman in November.
• Restore America’s Voice, a conservative PAC, spent $130,000 on online ads and telemarketing fundraising in opposition to Obama.
• “Change” from conservative Crossroads Generation manages to criticize Obama without actually naming him for the job prospects of recent college graduates.
• Maine Freedom, a super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cynthia Dill in Maine, reported spending more than $111,000 on ads supporting Dill and opposing former Gov. Angus King, the frontrunner and an independent.

The Pentagon has announced a new program to better oversee human cadaver tissue used in Defense Department hospitals around the world and is investigating allegations that some tissue-based medical implants provided to service members may have been obtained improperly, military officials said Wednesday.

At the same time, Congressional investigators say they are looking into government contracts between the Department of Veterans Affairs and RTI Biologics, a Florida-based manufacturer of medical implants made from human bones, skin, ligaments and other tissues. RTI is one of the world's largest players in the billion-dollar human tissue industry — processing a quarter of all material recovered from cadavers in the United States.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported in July that RTI had obtained tissues from suppliers in the U.S. and the Ukraine that have been investigated for allegedly forging documents or bullying families into signing donor consent forms.

“We are currently in the process of determining if our Military Treatment Facilities — administered by the Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively — have conducted business with RTI or its subsidiary, Tutogen,” Defense spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said in a prepared statement.

Read the rest at ICIJ.org.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees joins the political spending spree with more than $2.8 million in new ads, Federal Election Commission reports show.

While the union itself has already made a handful of ad buys this election, Thursday’s buy represents the first major round of ads this season from AFSCME’s political action committee, AFSCME PEOPLE (which stands for “Public Employees Organized to Promote Legislative Equality”).

AFSCME PEOPLE launched three ads:

• “Washington Changed Us,” which opposes former Wisconsin Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson’s senatorial run against Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin. The ad cost $966,000;
• “Side,” which opposes the re-election of Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., who is being challenged by Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley. The ad cost $1.1 million;
• “Mortgages,” a radio ad that opposes Heller and cost $105,000.

AFSCME the union also spent $768,000 on “Gamble,” opposing Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is challenging Democratic Sen. Jon Tester.

The anti-Thompson ad rests on a claim that he “sold his influence to healthcare companies” as a member of a D.C. lobbying firm. Thompson, a lawyer by training, did join Washington powerhouse lobbying and law firm Akin Gump, but he was never a registered lobbyist. However, Politifact said it is clear he nonetheless “sold his influence.”

The anti-Heller ad says that he sided with Wall Street over Nevada homeowners. Heller voted to end a mortgage relief plan for unemployed homeowners, to end the Federal Housing Administration Refinancing Program and to end the Home Affordable Modification Program.

AFSCME is one of the country’s largest unions and represents more than 1.6 million public service employees who belong to about 3,400 local chapters.

AFSCME’s PAC is subject to contribution limits but also has the freedom to contribute directly to candidates’ committees. The union itself, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, may make unlimited campaign expenditures so long as it does not coordinate with any candidates.

The PAC had a healthy $8.6 million on hand at the end of July, according to the most recent FEC report. It brought in nearly $600,000 in July, a low month for the PAC. Nonetheless, the both the union and its PAC are still dwarfed by major super PACs and politically active nonprofits.

To put it in context, AFSCME PEOPLE has spent $2.2 million, and AFSCME itself has spent about $4.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, the top-spending outside group, has spent $82.5 million. The second highest spender, conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity, has spent $30.8 million.

Like most unions, AFSCME overwhelmingly supports Democratic candidates.

In other union news, SEIU COPE, the PAC of the Service Employees International Union, reported spending $140,000 on ad production and airtime for ads opposing Republican Keith Rothfus, who is trying to unseat Rep. Mark Critz, the Democrat representing Pennsylvania’s 12th District.

The ad, “Keith Rothfus is Not on Our Side,” launched Sept. 4.

In other outside spending news:

• Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama, spent $1.7 million on ads opposing Romney.
• The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched ads in eight contested congressional races in New York, California, Arizona, Illinois, Ohio and Texas. The cost of the buys is unknown. Watch all the ads here.
• YG Action Fund, a conservative super PAC tied to Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and has received significant funding from super donor Sheldon Adelson, counters the DCCC campaign with $2 million in ad buys against House Democrats, Politico reports. The group has not yet reported the expenditures to the FEC.
• The Democratic Senatorial Congressional Committee criticizes Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., in an ad released Thursday for the Republican senatorial candidate’s support of Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. Berg faces former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp in the fall for the North Dakota seat.
• Conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity continued its spending spree with a $200,000 on ads opposing Obama.
• Majority PAC, which supports Democratic senatorial candidates, spent $187,000 on ads opposing Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana and Berg.
• House Majority PAC, supporting Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, spent nearly $500,000 on ads opposing Republican candidates in four congressional districts.
• American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC co-founded by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, spent $712,000 on the placement of online ads opposing Obama.
• The 60 Plus Association, a more conservative version of AARP, reported spending $317,000 on mailers opposing Obama.
• The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama released an ad featuring voters cheering Romney’s choice of a running mate in “Americans are Celebrating Paul Ryan.”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — President Barack Obama urged delegates at the Democratic National Convention to beware “the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election” in his acceptance speech Thursday night.

“If you reject the notion that our government is forever beholden to the highest bidder, you need to stand up in this election,” Obama said to a roaring crowd in the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte.

The impassioned speech came the same week that the main pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, said it raised $10 million in August, a record for the group, and enlisted the aid of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s campaign co-chairman, to help it raise money.

Democrats staked out positions against secret election spending, big-money politics and the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision throughout the convention.

The party is being seriously outraised by Republican super PACs and nonprofits, and its position is in stark contrast to Republicans, whose party platform opposes efforts to undo the high court’s decision.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling overturned an existing ban on corporate- and union-funded advertisements that advocate for the election or defeat of federal candidates.

It further said that independent political ads — even those funded with unlimited corporate cash — do not pose a threat of corruption. That’s a point that campaign finance reformers have disputed.

In other speeches, Democratic officials, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, also criticized special interest groups and their outsized influence in Washington.

“We believe in government of the many, not the privileged few,” said Pelosi, who added that Democrats will “work to overturn Citizens United.”

Warren said the “system is rigged,” and she argued that Obama would fight for a “level playing field.”

The Democratic Party’s platform supports “campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary,” as well as legislation to “require greater disclosure of campaign spending.”

The Republican Party platform calls for repealing the campaign finance reform law authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. and opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which seeks to institute new disclosure requirements for groups that run political ads.

The DISCLOSE Act was thwarted by Republican opposition in both this Congress and the previous one.

Republicans frame the debate as a First Amendment issue.

“The GOP will defend freedom of speech, and it does not view citizens’ political speech and involvement as a bad thing for democracy,” said Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

Those sentiments are echoed by Republican Dan Backer, an attorney at DB Capitol Strategies.

“The GOP has consistently stood up against the over-reaching, over-intrusiveness of the federal government in all aspects of our lives,” Backer said. “Here they are standing up against the notion that the government gets to dictate what speech is permissible.”

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has endorsed the notion of unlimited campaign contributions to political candidates. He opposes a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Last week Obama endorsed the idea of a constitutional amendment to override Citizens United during an online chat on the popular website Reddit.com.

In the Reddit chat, Obama criticized the “no-holds barred flow of seven- and eight- figure checks, most undisclosed, into super PACs.”

Obama’s statement confused super PACs with nonprofit spending groups.

Super PACs are permitted to accept unlimited contributions but are legally required to disclose their donors — that’s how casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Texas homebuilder Bob Perry and Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner have become headline fodder.

Nonprofits, organized under section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the U.S. tax code, can make the same types of expenditures but are not required to publicly disclose their donors.

Despite the banner month for Priorities USA Action, the GOP super PACs have raised and spent far more.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, pro-Romney super PAC has raised nearly $90 million so far this election, though much of that was used to fight off opponents in the GOP primary. Conservative super PAC American Crossroads has raised more than $47 million.

And that does not include tens of millions more raised by conservative nonprofits like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, which do not reveal their donors.

Priorities USA Action, not including the August amount, has raised $25.5 million.

Days before Citgo Petroleum Corp. faces its long-awaited sentencing for criminal Clean Air Act violations at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, a Justice Department court filing alleges that a “wide range” of environmental and worker safety violations continue to plague the plant.

Citgo was convicted in June 2007 of two criminal counts stemming from 10 years of toxic emissions from two massive, uncovered storage tanks. Such convictions are rare: The Center for Public Integrity reported last year that Clean Air Act cases have been prosecuted at a far lower rate than Clean Water Act or solid waste cases.

In its filing this week, the Justice Department asks a federal judge to fine Citgo $2,090,000, the maximum allowed under the statute, and put the company on five years’ probation — also the maximum — for illegal emissions of benzene and other hazardous chemicals from the tanks between 1994 and 2004.

The department says the refinery made almost $1.16 billion in profits during that period.

Citgo’s sentencing hearing is scheduled to begin Monday in U.S. District Court in Corpus Christi and could last several days. In an e-mailed statement Friday morning, the company said it “embraces a culture of safety that is reflected in everything we and our employees do. We are proud of our record and of the important role our refineries play in providing good jobs and much needed tax revenue for the communities they serve, including Corpus Christi.”

The Justice Department document alleges that Citgo “has violated a wide range of environmental and worker safety regulations” — as recently as this year in some cases.

An inspector with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, found that the refinery had five releases of hydrofluoric acid (HF), a potentially lethal gas, between Feb. 11 and March 20, 2012. As reported last year by the Center and ABC News, the refinery had a major HF release in July 2009 that severely injured a worker and put the nearby Hillcrest neighborhood at risk.

Citgo told state regulators that only 30 pounds of the acid escaped plant boundaries. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board later estimated, however, that at least 4,000 pounds left the refinery and concluded that failures in a Citgo water system meant to contain HF had nearly led to a bigger release.

The 2012 HF releases occurred “because equipment deficiencies are not repaired in a safe and timely manner” and are evidence of “systemic failure,” the Justice Department document says. The document also cites incidents such as the “preventable” release of more than 142,000 pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere on Dec. 25 and 30, 2009.

On Thursday, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed fines totaling $66,500 against Citgo for five alleged violations related to an HF leak. “The employer did not have proper safeguards in place to protect employees from the release of toxic chemicals,” Michael Rivera, OSHA’s area director in Corpus Christi, said in a written statement.

Suzie Canales, executive director of Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi, said she is disappointed that Citgo faces, at most, a fine of slightly more than $2 million for the 2007 Clean Air Act conviction. “It’s pocket change to them,” she said.

She also doesn’t understand why it’s taken more than five years for the company to be sentenced. “When you go that long, it sends a message to Citgo and others that it doesn’t matter if you violated the Clean Air Act — you’re going to get away with it,” Canales said.

In a related development Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans granted a petition seeking crime-victim status for 14 people who live near the refinery. The trial judge in the Citgo case, John D. Rainey, ruled last year that the residents didn’t qualify as victims under the Crime Victim’s Rights Act and therefore couldn’t testify at the company’s sentencing hearing because they hadn’t proven that emissions from the Citgo tanks were the “specific cause” of their alleged health problems, including shortness of breath, vomiting and dizziness.

The Fifth Circuit instructed Rainey to consider new arguments raised by the petition. “The judge needs to hear from these people to determine an appropriate sentence in the case,” said law professor Paul Cassell, who is representing the residents pro bono through the Appellate Clinic at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law.

It's not yet clear, however, whether the residents will speak at next week's hearing.

One of the biggest players in the global trade in human tissue has suspended its partnership with suppliers in Ukraine, where authorities have carried out multiple investigations over allegations of illegal tissue recovery.

RTI Biologics, a Florida-based manufacturer of medical implants made from skin, bone and other human parts, "made a decision to voluntarily suspend import of tissues from Ukrainian institutions," the company said in a statement Thursday.  

Congressional staffers and the Pentagon announced this week they were reviewing contracts the government holds with RTI and its German subsidiary Tutogen Medical. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported in July on RTI's relationship with morgues under investigation for allegedly forging documents or bullying families into signing donor consent forms. 

"We comply with comprehensive regulations, both from U.S. regulatory authorities and those of other countries, that govern each and every activity performed by tissue banks," RTI said.

Ukrainian law, like U.S. law, requires donors or their loved ones give express consent before tissue can be recovered. 

The trade in human parts is a billion-dollar industry that is growing and changing so rapidly, legislation has a hard time keeping pace. It is illegal in most countries to buy or sell human parts, but companies can charge fees for handling the tissue. RTI is a publicly-traded company that warns its stockholders, "the supply of human tissue has at times limited our growth, and may not be sufficient to meet our future needs."

RTI obtains tissue from more than 30 procurement agencies in the United States as well as in places such as Ukraine. The company supplies hospitals in more than 30 countries and in all fifty states. Records show the company has offered Ukrainian tissue to hospitals in New York. 

German officials had planned a September inspection of 10 Ukrainian morgues that supply Tutogen, according to Ines Schantz, a spokeswoman for the Upper Bavarian government in Germany. But the company withdrew its licenses to import tissue from Ukraine into Germany on August 20.

The German government subsequently cancelled its plans to inspect the foreign tissue agencies. "After the removal of all the institutes from the import license, there was no legal basis any longer to perform the planned inspection," Schantz said. 

She said German authorities continue to investigate human tissues already imported from the Ukraine.

ICIJ's eight-month investigation revealed that Tutogen, which was acquired by RTI in early 2008, has for years relied on its Ukrainian suppliers for a significant amount of human tissue in spite of concerns raised within the company more than a decade ago and a series of subsequent investigations.

Read the rest of the story.

What happened in Maine is a sobering reality check on the oft-repeated myth that getting rid of ObamaCare and other consumer protections is the answer to our health care problems. If the government will just get out of the way, the myth-makers would have us believe, the free market will magically transform our dysfunctional health care systems into one of the world’s very best.

The voters in Maine fell for magical thinking in 2010 when they turned over control of the legislature and governor’s office to candidates who promised to block ObamaCare and implement what they called “common sense” free-market solutions. Once they did, they assured voters, insurance premiums would fall and more people would have access to affordable care.

Sure enough, soon after being sworn in, lawmakers passed legislation that in many ways took Maine in the opposite direction of where President Obama wanted to go. When newly elected Republican Governor Paul LePage signed the bill into law —a bill enthusiastically endorsed by insurance companies — many consumer protections enacted over two decades disappeared. Especially hard hit: people living in rural areas and folks over 40.  

Among other things, the new law abolished protections for rural families that had required insurers to have at least one doctor in their provider networks within 30 miles of where those families lived and at least one hospital within 60 miles. The law also allows insurance companies to effectively double rates for older residents. That provision is affecting not only individuals and families, but also small businesses that employ older workers. Within months of the bill’s passage, insurers began jacking up the rates they charged businesses with older workers by 90 percent or more.

Even so, backers of the new law continued to insist that after it had been in effect for awhile, the measure would help a majority of Mainers.

But those promises have turned out to be empty, as Consumers for Affordable Health Care, a statewide advocacy group, found following a review of company reports filed with the Maine Bureau of Insurance since the law was enacted. What they found should dash the hopes of even the most ardent free-market supporters.

The group found that more than half of individual policyholders saw their rates go up, not down. It was even worse for small businesses: 90 percent of them got rate increases instead of decreases. And, as consumer advocates had feared, hardest hit were indeed older workers and people living in rural areas, most of whom saw good coverage options previously available to them disappear.

In response to the group’s report, backers of the law said they still expect rates will eventually go down for many people as more young folks start buying policies. Their optimism is based on the theory that as insurers charge older people more, they can charge younger people less. If the theory holds, previously uninsured young people will begin signing up for coverage in droves. Once that happens, the pool of insured residents will increase and insurers, being good corporate citizens, will then lower premiums for everybody else.

The problem is that, in the absence of subsidies and a requirement that they buy insurance, some young people are still deciding to remain uninsured. Not so much because they want to be uninsured, but because they just don’t make enough money to pay for health insurance on their own. And many who do consider buying a policy undoubtedly are being turned off by just how inadequate the policies with relatively low premiums really are. Most of the policies marketed to young people have either limited benefits or very high deductibles — or both — meaning that they do not represent good value for consumers. What they do represent are big profits for insurance firms.

As Joseph Ditré, executive director of Consumers for Affordable Health Care, said, "The promise of new young, healthy uninsureds returning to the health insurance market and thereby lowering prices for everyone is just not happening.”

And small businesses are not seeing better deals, either, as a result of the law. On the contrary, insurance companies are raising premiums on small businesses in all geographic areas, not just in remote areas. Especially hard hit are businesses with older workers.

Ditré worries that because of the sharp premium increases that are going into effect throughout the state, not only will the number of uninsured Mainers increase but those who are most likely to drop their coverage as it becomes increasingly unaffordable are those who need it most: older people.

So much for magical thinking and the fantastical free-market ideas to fix health care.

Facing the end of an era of untrammeled growth in defense spending, officials at the Pentagon have spent most of 2012 telling anyone who will listen how potential budget cuts will put national security in jeopardy. While funds for big ticket military items are under new pressure, however, there’s one thing the Pentagon still has pocket change for: its well-groomed chauffeurs.

On Friday, the Army formally solicited new bids to make the grey uniforms used by chauffeurs.  The request was first uncovered by our friend Mark Thompson, who closely tracks such bids for his entertaining Battleland blog at TIME.

The bid makes clear that even though the Pentagon has plenty to worry about these days — the threat of war with Iran, the chaos in Syria, and the continued conflict in Afghanistan, to name a few — someone there still has time to worry about the fine details of how the drivers of top generals and assistant secdefs are to be dressed.

In the solicitation, the fabrics of the uniforms are spelled out with precision:  coats and trousers must be 55 percent polyester and 45 percent wool, while shirts should be 65 percent polyester and 35 percent cotton. The cotton tie must be burgundy. Anticipating a rough winter, the solicitation included an order for 68 black V-neck sweaters. 

As Thompson points out, the details suggest the chauffeur force is heavily male.  The Army wants 203 men’s coats and 16 women’s coats, along with 408 men’s shirts and only 24 for women.  Nothing but the best will do: “new Equipment ONLY; NO remanufactured or ‘gray market’ items,” and all items must be covered by a warranty.  Sizes aren’t specified, apparently because there will be a personal fitting in the autumn. The solicitation does not specify how much the Army is prepared to spend.

According to the solicitation, the Army chauffeur corps transports “Senior Executive Staffs of the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Army and Air Force, Vice Chiefs of Staff Army and Air Force, Assistant Secretaries, and other Principal Officials of Headquarters Department of Defense (DoD).” 

What kind of cars will the Pentagon’s best and brightest be riding in? The solicitation doesn’t say, but it’s worth noting the Army has previously asked for bids to make four large SUVs — two 2011 Lincoln Navigators L 4X4 and two Ford Expedition XLT vehicles, all meant to seat seven passengers.

Only a few lawmakers have tried to make political hay by complaining about the Pentagon’s chauffeur system. In 1973, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., called it “outrageous.” But judging from the Pentagon’s new order, even in a time of relative austerity, this is one expense the top brass feels it cannot do without.

Requests for comment to the Army and the contracting officer listed in the solicitation were not immediately returned. The Office of the Secretary of Defense referred questions to the Army.

The YG Action Fund, a super PAC associated with the conservative “Young Guns” movement led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan, reported spending nearly $2 million on ads in three Democrat-held congressional districts.

While the Young Guns is associated with the National Republican Congressional Committee, YG Action Fund is independently managed and independently financially backed, with support coming from super donor Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam, who gave it $5 million in April, and by a handful of smaller donors, including Cantor’s leadership PAC, Every Republican Is Crucial (ERICPAC).

The new ads oppose Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., Maj. Gen. Bill Enyart, the Democrat running in Illinois’ 12th District, and Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

McIntrye faces Republican state Sen. David Rouzer in North Carolina’s 7th District, one of the more expensive House races in the country. The district has attracted $1.6 million in outside spending so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Two Mikes” says McIntyre “talks like a conservative” but has voted like a liberal.

Enyart, a retired general who until recently headed Illinois’ National Guard, faces Republican businessman Jason Plummer for retiring Democratic Rep. Jerry Costello’s seat in Illinois’ 12th District.

“Something New” paints Enyart as out-of-touch and reminds voters he was appointed by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Tierney is challenged by former state Sen. Richard Tisei, a Republican, for his seat representing Massachusetts’ 6th District. Tierney has been embroiled in scandal since it was discovered his brothers-in-law were running an illegal offshore gambling operation. The seat could be an easy pickup for Republicans, making Tisei the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress, National Public Radio reported.

The anti-Tierney ad centers around the scandal (his wife is serving jail time) and says it’s “time for John Tierney to man up and tell the truth — the whole truth.”

The Young Guns movement, which started with a Weekly Standard magazine cover five years ago, was founded by Cantor, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. After its launch, the NRCC folded it in as part of its fundraising program.

The YG Action Fund was created in October 2011, a Federal Election Commission report shows. Cantor has denied control over the super PAC.

Cantor’s deputy chief of staff, John Murray, founded the super PAC and serves as its treasurer. Murray also founded and runs YG Network, an affiliated, non-disclosing 501(c)(4) nonprofit that can produce and air political ads, and YG Policy Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that generates studies and educational programs.

YG Network, which is not required to reveal its donors, went after longtime Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., in April during state’s first contested GOP primary in decades, which resulted in the moderate Lugar being ousted in favor of tea partier Richard Mourdock.

YG Action Fund’s new ads appear to be the super PAC’s first major campaign since it helped former congressional aide Richard Hudson win a tight GOP runoff in North Carolina against Rep. Scott Keadle in July.

In other outside spending news:

• Conservative Campaign for Working Families takes out of context a noisy vote among delegates at the Democratic National Convention about whether or not to amend the platform to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and to add back the word “God.” The ad suggests the acrimony among delegates was attributable to the “God” clause, not the Jerusalem assertion.
• The NRCC spent almost $4.1 million opposing Democrats and Republicans in 21 congressional districts.
• The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $971,000 supporting Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., in his race for U.S. Senate in the state and opposing former state Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat. The buy also opposes Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who faces a challenge by Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont.
• Pro-President Barack Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action launched “We the People,” an ad targeted at middle-class voters opposing Romney. The group reported spending $750,000 on new ad buys.
• Center Forward, which supports moderate Democrats and Republicans, released “Struggle,” which opposes Georgia state Rep. Lee Anderson, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 12th District.
• The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released “Enough” opposing Rodney Davis, the Republican candidate for Congress is Illinois’ 13th District. The DCCC also released “Out for Himself” opposing Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, and “Shanghai” opposing Keith Rothfus, the Republican candidate for U.S. House in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. The group also reported spending more than $890,000 and $1.1 million in two separate waves of ads.
• The Service Employees International Union PEA, the union’s super PAC, spent almost $1.1 million supporting the re-elections of Obama, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio; the Senate bids of former Democratic Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; and the U.S. House bid of Manny Yevancy, a Democrat running in Florida’s 27th District. The group’s July quarterly report showed a $550,000 contribution from the SEIU’s general fund.
• Crossroads Generation, a conservative super PAC aimed at young voters, debuted “Not Working,” opposing Obama.
• Club for Growth Action, a conservative super PAC, reported $792,000 in new ads supporting Richard Mourdock, the tea party Republican running against Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly for U.S. Senate in Indiana.
• The Safari Club International PAC spent $141,000 supporting 17 Republicans and four Democrats. Safari Club International is an international organization of hunters that also funds wildlife conservation programs.