The Crossroads network has spent approximately $174,285,625.40 on the 2012 election and almost three out of every four dollars (70.5%) of this organization’s spending has come from anonymous donors.

This sum essentially ensures that Crossroads will be the most influential outside group in this election cycle. To illustrate: Crossroads has doubled the spending of the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future and may even outpace the incredible performance of the Republican National Committee.

Crossroads GPS, the 501(c)4 arm that does not disclose its donors, has spent  $122,954,165.33 according to press releases and information reported to the FEC. GPS’s sister super PAC, American Crossroads, has shelled out another $51,331,460.070 in this election cycle. The Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie inspired powerhouse of outside spending has skewed more towards anonymous sources of funds in this election: only 44% of the $38.6 million that Crossroads doled out in the 2010 cycle came from GPS’s furtive patrons.

This indicates that either more donors or the donors who are giving the most are choosing to remain anonymous. Given the tremendous amount of attention that mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson have received for their political involvement, it is not surprising to discover that many donors are choosing secrecy.

It is important to keep in mind that there is no way to know how much Crossroads GPS is sitting on, and the balance of American Crossroads is only disclosed quarterly. Depending on its cash on hand, Crossroads may be within striking distance of the ambitious $240 million goal that was set when former Governor Haley Barbour signed on as chief fundraiser just over a year ago.

The two groups have combined for just $1.2 million in expenditures supporting a candidate, meaning that 99.3% of their spending is on negative ads. For comparison’s sake, 72% of the spending from all 822 super PACs in this election has been negative.

There are almost 27,000 people—or 1/100th of one percent of the United States population—who spent more than $10,000 to influence elections during the 2010 election cycle.

The top 10 people from this elite class of donors together spent more than $23 million on the last election. The majority of that money went to Super PACs used for independent expenditures. Eight contributed their money exclusively to Republican groups and candidates; two contributed exclusively to Democratic groups and candidates.

In total, this tiny group of relatively unknown individuals was responsible for $774 million of the $3.2 billion that poured into the hotly contested mid-term elections. That money went not only to candidate campaigns and political action committees, but to Super PACs, officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees.” After the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United and the Federal Election Commission’s two advisory opinions that followed, individuals and corporations effectively have unlimited giving potential. By giving to Super PACs, they can bypass traditional giving limits.

The group that benefited most from the top 10 mega-donors largesse: American Crossroads. That Super PAC received millions of dollars from seven of the top donors, and $7 million from just one donor, Bob Perry.

Here’s a look at who’s who among America’s top 10 most influential givers:

1. Bob Perry is the CEO of Perry Homes. Perry has been influential in politics and a prominent donor for a number of years. In 2004, he gave $8 million to a number of nonprofit political groups known as 527 committees. Most notably, $4.4 million of that money went to the political group Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which opposed Sen. John Kerry’s presidential bid. During the 2010 election cycle, Perry donated $7.3 million to political efforts. All but a small portion of his money for the 2010 election went to American Crossroads, a group cofounded by former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie.

2. Wayne Hughes, owner and chairman of Public Storage, Inc. According to disclosures, Hughes gave a total of $3.28 million to conservative candidates and committees, with $3.25 million going to American Crossroads. Hughes also gave $4,800 to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

3. Fred Eshelman is the CEO of Pharmaceutical Product Development. Eshelman spent $3 million in 2010 funding his own group, RightChange. RightChange registered with the FEC as a Super PAC and spent those millions of dollars to defeat Democratic candidates including Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.

4. Robert Rowling, CEO and Chairman of TRT Holdings, a holding company that owns Golds Gyms and Omni Hotels as well as oil and gas interests. Rowling spent $2.59 million during the last election on conservative efforts. He gave $2.5 million of that money to American Crossroads.

5. Donald Sussman is the Chairman of the holding company Paloma Partners. Sussman, who earlier this year married Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, gave $1.26 million in 2010 to Democratic candidates. He has also funded a group called the Democracy Fund, a separate but predecessor organization to the United Republic Action Fund. Both of these groups have been affiliated with United Republic, and both have been dissolved.* Sussman gave a little more than $750,000 to the Super PAC Women Vote! and its parent organization Emily’s List. Those two organizations support pro-choice female political candidates.

6. John Ricketts is the founder of TD Ameritrade and still a board member there. In 2010, his total political contributions were $1.25 million. He gave to a variety of Republican candidates, including House Speaker John Boehner.

7. Jerry Perenchio is the CEO of the investment firm Chartwell Partners and former owner of the Spanish-speaking television network Univision. In 2010, he gave $1.12 million to conservative candidates and groups, including $1 million to American Crossroads.

8. Trevor Rees-Jones is the president of Chief Oil & Gas. In 2010, he gave $1.1 million to Republican efforts. $1,000,000 of that was given to American Crossroads.

9. Rachel Hunter is the Treasurer for the organization Media Matters and an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune. She’s related to Penny Pritzker who was the national finance chairwoman of the Obama campaign in 2008. In 2010, Hunter gave more than $1 million to democratic groups and candidates. The bulk of that money went to the 527 organization, Bring Ohio Back.

10. John Childs is on the Board of Directors for Club for Growth and is the founder of JW Childs Assoc., a private equity firm. In 2010, he gave a total $923,000 to Super PACs supporting Republicans and to Republican candidates directly. He gave $100,000 of that money to American Crossroads and $650,000 to his own group, Club for Growth.

For a full list of the top donors for 2010, see the embedded spreadsheet below.

Also, as a disclaimer, we think it is important to note that there are funders of the Sunlight Foundation on this list. For example, David Bonderman and Marjorie Roswell are numbers 9 and 103 on the list and have donated to the Sunlight Foundation. Additionally, the founder of the Open Society Foundations, George Soros, is 134th on the list. Open Society Foundations has provided grant support to Sunlight.

*Based on inaccurate information received from a source at United Republic, we originally reported incorrectly that Donald Sussman is a funder of that organization.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Two conservative groups founded last year with the help of Republicans Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have set a goal of raising $120 million in the effort to defeat President Barack Obama, win a GOP majority in the Senate and protect the party's grip on the House in the 2012 election.

...

If the conservative groups meet the target disclosed to The Wall Street Journal, they would establish their organizations—American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS—as possibly the largest force in the 2012 campaign, aside from the presidential candidates themselves and the political parties.

American Crossroads and its sister group helped conservative groups reach parity in the 2010 elections with labor unions and other Democratic-leaning groups that for years had led in campaign fund raising.

When Messrs. Rove and Gillespie helped launch the groups last year, they hoped to raise $52 million. They exceeded their goal by raising $71 million in the 29 weeks between opening their doors until the election. That made them the second-largest source of campaign spending other than candidates and political parties.

While this Los Angeles Times article focuses more on the departure of Sen. Russ Feingold and what that means for the campaign finance reform community it also contains this little tidbit from a top member of American Crossroads, the conservative Super PAC created after the Citizens United ruling:

"We operate like a hedge fund," said Steven Law, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and president of American Crossroads, a nonprofit group that funds political ads. "We look for opportunities where we can invest and make a difference."

Obviously hedge funds wind up with a return on investments, as do their investors. This may simply be the ideological return on investment that comes with the territory, but, since Citizens United obliterated barriers for corporations donating directly to groups promising a return on investment, it is hard to argue that the "persons" of TRT Holdings or Mr. American Financial Group are simply seeking ideological outcomes rather than investment returns that directly effect their bottom lines. Meanwhile, there are countless other donors seeking a return on investment who remain unknown due to the proliferation of politically active groups that do not disclose their donors.

The Washington Post has the total amount that was raised by American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS during the 2010 midterms:

A pair of conservative groups founded with the help of Republican political guru Karl Rove raised more than $70 million since their inception last spring, making them the undisputed leaders of an onslaught of outside spending on 2010 House and Senate races, according to new disclosures Thursday. American Crossroads, a "super PAC" that can raise and spend as much money as it wants, took in nearly $28 million in donations, weighted heavily with large contributions from financiers, oil tycoons and other wealthy individuals, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Spokesman Jonathan Collegio also said Thursday that a sister group, Crossroads GPS, took in about $43 million this year. Because it is organized as a nonprofit, the second group does not have to reveal its donors.

You can use our database to search through all the races where they spent their money in the midterm elections.

Just announced chairwoman of Democratic Super PAC American Bridge Kathleen Kennedy Townsend:

“American democracy has to be based on transparency, and who’s giving and why are they giving."

To which I say, hear hear.

American Bridge is not the first Super PAC on the Democratic side of the aisle, but it could be the biggest in the 2012 election. It would be good if this were the position they intended to stake out.

It looks, however, that despite the affirmation of disclosure, the activists organizing around the new group are going to follow the path of their Republican counterparts American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS. American Crossroads' fundraising did not take off until they spun off Crossroads GPS to open an avenue for secret donations. According to the New York Times, American Bridge organizer David Brock is open to creating an avenue for undisclosed money:

Certain to set off debate, however, is that Mr. Brock appears to be positioning his new organization so that fund-raising consultants can raise money for Democratic-oriented media efforts not just through American Bridge but also via one of the nonprofit organizations Mr. Brock currently runs, Media Matters Action Network, which does not disclose its donors. The action network, which tracks conservative politicians and advocacy organizations, is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group and is set to take on an expanded role in the 2012 elections, including potentially running television ads, according to an internal draft concept paper about American Bridge’s and Media Matter Action Network’s plans obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Brock said that “money is money,” and that he would actively solicit donors for both entities and, in the end, the media spending would be apportioned accordingly.

Brock has also stated that American Bridge and Media Matters Action Network are “completely separate organizations.”

The precedent of the 2008 election was a dangerous one. It looks as though it will become more entrenched--barring the passage of the DISCLOSE Act or another act of Congress. That precedent has been backed up by some serious voices on the right who are apparently opposed to transparency. Here are some examples.

One can certainly assume that the amount unlimited, secret money will increase by large amounts in the coming election.

Major Democratic donors and activists are coming together to plot an outside spending strategy for the 2012 campaign after failing to fully take advantage of new rules around campaign spending.

According to the New York Times, donors to the Democracy Alliance, a network of major Democratic and liberal donors, gathered to plot how to maximize the new possibilities for pumping money into non-party aligned campaign groups in the mold of the conservative American Crossroads group.

There was little spending on the Democratic side taking advantage of new rules crafted in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and the SpeechNow.org appeals court ruling in the 2010 election. America's Families First, Commonsense Ten and Women Vote! are the three biggest spenders of these groups. The amount these three spent barely exceeds half of the amount spent by American Crossroads.

A new group would likely try to harness Democratic donors who were dissuaded by the Obama campaign in 2008 from donating to outside groups. David Brock, the head of MediaMatters.org, is cited as the leader of the effort to create a new Super PAC. The Times notes Brock's previous attempt to start an outside group prior to the new, post-Citizens United rules, "Mr. Brock led a much-heralded independent media effort in the 2008 presidential election that failed to gain much traction after the Obama campaign indicated it preferred that donors did not give to such groups."

The group would, like American Crossroads and unlike Crossroads GPS, be formed as an independent expenditure-only committee, which can raise unlimited money with no contribution limit, but would still disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission.

Over the last several weeks, the Colorado Senate race became the poster race of the outrageous amounts of money pouring into politics from outside groups, attracting more than $32 million in spending--more than any other race in the country. A close look at the data reveals some telling points on how this political spending worked on the ground.

What was new this year in Colorado was not outside spending. In 2008, the Colorado Senate race also attracted money from outside groups, such as 527 political organizations and labor unions. And many of the groups spending in 2010 also were in the fray in 2008, albeit some wearing different legal costumes. A good chunk of the money spent this year was in the form of "dark money"--money spent by groups that do not disclose donors; however, the major group doing so also took out its wallet in 2008.

What was new was a substantially higher amount of spending--$32 million vs. $20.4 million; a harder edge on many of the group’s ads; and that groups could (and did) raise their cash directly from corporations and unions for such ads.

Here are some notable trends from Colorado:

• The biggest gorilla in the room. American Crossroads, the “super PAC” founded this year with the help of GOP strategist Karl Rove, bet big in Colorado. A creature of the new regime after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, American Crossroads reported spending $5.9 million on independent expenditures in the Senate race to help Buck’s candidacy. That’s more than twice as much as any other non-party organization, and one-and-a-half times as much as Ken Buck raised for his own campaign. It wasn’t all that long ago that this kind of money was enough to win a Senate seat. The group has raised its cash from a mix of wealthy individuals and corporations—the latter of which would have been impossible before Citizens United.
• Lots of “Dark money.” Some $5.4 million of the money flowing into Colorado was “dark money”—money spent by organizations that do not publicly disclose donors to the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a 501(C)6 organization, reported spending $2.4 million on issue ads. Back in 2008, the group reported $1.5 million. The conservative Americans for Job Security, a 501(c)6, reported spending $976,000 on issue ads in the race (a substantial portion in the primary). Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, a 501(c)4, reported spending $878,500. Technically the money went to issue ads rather than to oppose or support a candidate. However this clip is openly critical of Buck for saying that voters should choose him because he doesn’t “wear high heels.”  Nonprofit groups like these have been emboldened this year to spend more aggressively on political activity; some members of Congress and watchdog groups have called for investigations.
• Meet the new folks, (sort of) the same as the old folks. The NEA Advocacy Fund reported making $1.9 million on hard-hitting independent expenditures opposing Buck. The group’s main source of cash appears to be its parent organization, the National Education Association. Spending on direct advocacy ads funded by unions would not have been possible before Citizens United. While the union also reported spending big in the 2008 Senate race here--$925,000—most of that money went to electioneering communications, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Ditto the conservative Club for Growth Action, a new super PAC that reported spending $997,000 on issue ads. In 2008, most of the money reported by the group under a different guise went to issue advocacy. Overall, 15 out of 22 of the most generous outside spenders in the Colorado race used their cash for independent expenditures rather than issue ads.

What effect all this spending had on the actual outcome of the race is debatable. Bennet raised far more cash for his campaign fund than Buck did for his. The independent expenditures favored Buck, but not by a large margin. In the end, the Bennet’s victory was decided by fewer than 16,000 votes.

But one thing is for sure: the onslaught of spending here was like going back to Colorado’s Wild West roots. All these groups were grabbing for the biggest gun in town, and the sheriff wasn’t paying much attention. And it was just practice for what we can expect come 2012. As goes Colorado, so goes the nation.

In 2002 former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once flippantly described connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists by saying, "There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know." Little did Rumsfeld know that his remark would be the most accurate description for a murky midterm election eight years down the road.

The 2010 midterm election is filled with both "known unknowns," outside groups raised and spent $126 million on elections without disclosing the source, and "unknown unknowns," we don't know what those undisclosed donors want. We do know one thing: the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling allowed this election to be the costliest and least transparent midterm in recent history.

The impact of Citizens United can be judged by simply following the money. The $126 million in undisclosed money represents more than a quarter of the total $450 million spent by outside groups. Add the $60 million spent by groups that were allowed to raise unlimited money, but still had to disclose, to the undisclosed money and the total amount of outside money made possible by the Citizens United ruling reaches $186 million or 40 percent of the total spent by outside groups.

The outside groups taking advantage of the Citizens United ruling are largely tilted towards the Republicans. Republican groups raising unlimited money and disclosing their donors spent $35.7 million, $11 million more than their Democratic counterparts. By a nearly six to one margin Republicans outspent the Democrats among groups that failed to disclose the source of their money ($59 million to $10 million).

[caption id="attachment_18103" align="alignright" width="142" caption="Click to see the top 20 outside groups and how they fared in the 2010 elections"][/caption]

This heavy partisan tilt in outside spending aided the Republicans in expanding the playing field and likely helped them exceed predictions for House seat pickups.

According to a report by Politico's Jeanne Cummings, the Republican outside groups coordinated their spending, maximizing their ability to influence the elections with a massive wave of spending. Cummings also reports that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which was at a serious monetary disadvantage to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), took an unprecedented step by disclosing their ad buy strategy to the public, thus allowing the Republican outside groups to coordinate their spending with the party committee. The party committee is forbidden to coordinate with outside groups. A new loophole in federal election laws was forged when the NRCC publicly revealed their ad strategy.

Crossroads GPS, a group associated with former Bush political director Karl Rove, spent 75 percent of their money on races where the Republican candidate won. The group spent $4.4 million, the most they spent in any race, opposing Democratic candidate Alexi Giannoulias in the closely fought Illinois Senate race. Giannoulias lost the race to Mark Kirk by two percentage points. GPS does not disclose their donors and could only exist in a post-Citizens United world.

The group also spent money in tight House races where Republicans have pulled off victories or appear to have won. Democratic incumbent Jim Costa looks to be headed to a defeat in California's 20th district. Crossroads GPS spent over $300,000 against Costa, who is trailing by less than three percentage points. The group spent another $300,000 against Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, who lost by five points to his Republican challenger.

The other Republican groups, including American Crossroads, another Rove-linked organization, spent most of their money on races that Republicans won. American Crossroads spent significantly on key House races that Republicans picked up including Florida's 22nd, New York's 20th district and Texas' 17th district. Republicans also seem poised to win a close victory in New York's 25th district where American Crossroads spent over $400,000 to defeat Rep. Dan Maffei.

[caption id="attachment_18110" align="alignleft" width="132" caption="Click to see the top 20 outside groups and how they fared in the 2010 elections"][/caption]

Democratic-linked groups, including the big labor unions AFSCME, NEA and SEIU, did not fare well in the election. AFSCME, the union representing public sector workers, spent 85 percent of their money--$6.51 million--on races where the Democratic candidate lost. NEA, the National Education Association, was the most successful among Democratic groups in where it placed the majority of its money. The group spent 68 percent of its money on races where Democrats won.

Prior to the November 2nd election Congress sought to require outside groups to disclose their money by voting on a bill known as the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act would have required many of these groups to disclose some of their top donors to the public, reducing the trend begun by Citizens United towards less transparent elections. Already groups aligned with the Tea Party are stating their opposition to any attempt at increasing disclosure in the campaign finance system.

It is unclear whether the lame duck 111th Congress or the 112th Congress, with Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives, will move to pass a disclosure bill for this outside spending. The trend towards more "unknown unknowns" looks as though it will increase in the 2012 election and beyond.

Denver, Colorado...With the Senate race here considered closest in the nation, local officials are bracing for the possibility of needing to do a recount post-election.  The Senate race also continued to be the focus of most of the ads during the half hour of news I watched on channel 4 (CBS) this morning. Of the 11 ads I saw, five focused on the Senate campaign, and of those, three were paid for by outside groups--American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

8:26 a.m.: from Democrat Rep. Ed Perlmutter's campaign: Frazier had a poor attendance record in office, his company helped outsource jobs. Sunlight CAM link here.

Democrat Rep. Betsy Markey points out that her opponent, Cory Gardner, has had to pull some of his attack ads for inaccuracy. Sunlight CAM link here.

8:28 a.m.: Michael Bennet campaign ad says that Ken Buck doesn't care if jobs are outsourced to other countries. See Bennet ads on Sunlight CAM link here.

8:48 a.m. Michael Bennet voted for Obama's failed stimulus; he was the deciding vote on "Obama-care." He's "their senator not ours." This one is from American Crossroads, which has spent more than $5.1 million on independent expenditures opposing Bennet; most recently it reported a $646,000 media buy on October 26.

The Ryan Frazier campaign says that the first two years of "change" have brought record deficits and corrupt politicians.

The NRSC runs a positive ad for Ken Buck, saying he has "deep Colorado roots," who will say "no" to reckless spending. In an echo of the negative American Crossroads ad above, the tag line is "He'll be our senator, not theirs." The NRSC has reported spending $4.2 million on ads opposing Bennet and $912,000 on ads supporting Buck. Where does the NRSC get its money to run such ads? Not from Colorado. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, top donors this election cycle--all giving more than $200,000--include the New York hedge firm Elliott Management, Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and Texas developer Perry Homes.

8:53 a.m.: Ken Buck's kids aren't as young as Bennet's but they still can do cute campaign ads. In this ad from the candidate's campaign, daughter Kaitlin, says her dad coached her brother Cody as well as her. Now Cody is at West Point, and Kaitlin is at Clemson. They're helping their dad's campaign, and it's not easy with all the negative ads. "Dad's always been there for us; he'll be there for Colorado too."

8:54 a.m.: Betsy Markey has voted with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time! This ad from Cory Gardner has gotten very heavy air play, at least during my watch.

From the Ryan Frazier campaign, an ad saying he'll "restore common sense to Washington."

8:56 a.m. The NRSC ad on Buck and his "deep Colorado roots." See 8:48 a.m.

8:59 a.m. From the Betsy Markey campaign, an ad saying don't believe what you hear attack ads. Markey says "I have zero tolerance for Wall Street bailouts."

To see all installments of "Swing State Confidential," click here.