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.

A roundup of what we're noticing in the Reporting Group as we dig into government data and disclosures:

By the numbers: Outside groups have disclosed spending some $347 million, of which $302 million directly advocates defeat or election of a federal candidate. Biggest chunk of that latter portion: Outside, non-party groups (including Super PACs and non-profits) opposing Democratic candidates ($73.5 million) followed by Democratic Party committees opposing Republican candidates ($66.4 million). Get the latest numbers right here.

Running out of cash? National Republican Congressional Committee reported spending $10 million over the last five days. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, over the same period, spent $1.2 million. Super PAC American Crossroads spent $1.9 million over the same period.

Discl-$0-sure: Ending Spending Fund, a Super PAC that's disclosed spending $1.1 million--the biggest chunk on opposing Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.--has filed its pre-general election report with the Federal Election Commission. Starting cash: $0. Total receipts: $0. Total spent: $0. They don't disclose donors either.

New Super PACs: Kinde Durkee, who runs a firm that specializes in helping political organizations comply with filing requirements (and was fined $110,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for financial reporting violations), filed a form with the FEC for No 2 Sides PAC. The initial filing for the Super PAC lists the Liar Alert PAC as an affiliated committee; the latter discloses no receipts or disbursements in its October quarterly report. Matthew Garrington registered the Environment Colorado Action Committee. Garrington's linkedin profile is here. Neither group has disclosed spending any money, though Liar Alert PAC has a website featuring issue ads.

Be sure to check out our Follow the Unlimited Money tool--updated hourly!--to get all the latest info on outside groups.

PhRMA & 527s: Citizens for Strength and Security filed its 527 pre-election report with the Internal Revenue Service. Biggest donors: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Democratic Governors Association and labor union SEIU. My colleague wrote about CSS Action Fund, which may or may not be an affiliated committee, here.

From Sunlight CAM: Democratic National Committee supporting Todd Young in Indiana? Might mean the DCCC.

The Daily Poligraft: Weekend edition: GOP Mega Donors look toward 2012, from Politico.

Subcontractors: USASpending.gov announces on its home page that it will track sub award data starting Dec. 1st.

Today's Politiwidget: Bank of America acknowledged errors in its handling of foreclosures, the Wall Street Journal reports. We've been keeping an eye on the foreclosure crisis and Bank of America; the top House recipient of contributions from them is...

A roundup of what we're noticing in the Reporting Group as we dig into government data and disclosures:

Another fat Tuesday: American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS reported spending a combined $3,749,741 on several senate races yesterday -- the highest day of spending by the two groups so far (Oct. 5 is a close second, with $3,698,949). Together, the groups have spent about $17.5 million this cycle. Both are advised by Karl Rove; Crossroads GPS doesn't disclose its donors. American Crossroads does.

Entering the fray: Majority Action PAC, which filed with the Federal Election Committee as a Super PAC on Aug. 17, 2010, made its first independent expenditure, paying for "mail production & postage" aimed at defeating third party candidate Joe Aden, who points out on his website that the FEC "allows us to spend and/or collect $5,000 before filing forms." Majority Action PAC is also opposing Scott Tipton, the Republican candidate in Colorado's third congressional district. The organization lists Judith Zamore as treasurer and custodian of records; Zamore's linkedin profile is here.

Neck and neck: After reporting media buys in a half dozen races (MD-1, NY-20, IL-10, IA-3, HI-1, FL-25 and IA-2), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($21,753,309) is less than $1 million behind the National Republican Congressional Committee ($22,362,981) in independent expenditures.

Be sure to check out our Follow the Unlimited Money tool--updated hourly!--to get all the latest info on outside groups.

School lobby: University of Southern California hires lobbying firm American Defense International; USC is interested in money appropriated for installation protection and research into post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

Romney restoration? Yesterday, we noted the formation of a 527 calling itself DraftPalin4President. What caught our eye about the filing was that the group, headquartered in Tucson, Ariz., was paying fees to the Washington office of law and lobbying firm Akin Gump. Today we came across a new Super PAC filing for a group called Restore Our Future PAC. The filing lists Chris R. Spies as its treasurer and its address as that of the Washington, D.C. office of law firm Clark Hill. Spies' bio notes that he served as "Chief Financial Officer and Counsel for Governor Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign." He managed the $105 million that Romney raised, including FEC compliance. Spies also worked for the Republican Governors Association, a 527 organization. To date, Restore Our Future has yet to make any independent expenditures.

What we're seeing in online disclosures and documents:

Party Favors: National Republican Congressional Committee top spender on indirect expenditures ($22,175,402) followed by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($15,166,819) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ($11,187,080).

GOP Senate Slackers: National Republican Senatorial Committee lags far behind its Democratic counterpart, having spent just $3,292,267 on independent expenditures. National Association of Realtors (which is backing both Republicans and Democrats) has spent more ($3,716,169). Maybe this is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, top spender on electioneering communications ($15,804,292), has spent nearly $11.6 million on a dozen Senate races.

For information on spending by outside groups in the 2010 mid-term elections, check out our Follow the Unlimited Money tool.

Go East! Despite its name, the Western Representation PAC (which for the most part supports candidates west of the Mississippi--Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle and Alaska Republican candidate Joe Miller) is supporting Sean Bielat, running against incumbent Rep. Barney Frank in Massachusetts' Fourth district. That's not even in the western part of the state! Bielat recently released a poll showing he trailed Frank by ten points.

Mopping up: Insider firm Blank & Rome registers Marine Spill Response Corporation as a client to follow congressional hearings and administration policy on Deepwater Horizon spill. House Energy & Commerce Committee has already requested documents from MSRC related to its relationship with BP; MSRC controlled "bulk of skimmers listed in oil companies' contingency plans" and was "formed and funded collectively by big oil companies after Alaska's Valdez spill in 1989 and run by a former BP executive," according to Reuters.

Bag men: Troubled J Street PAC bundled $20,292 for Sen. Russ Feingold's campaign.

Got to be a typo: A Johnny Satterwhite discloses spending $100 million--that's $100,000,000--lobbying NASA on that agency's work with the Energy Department to "combine the technologies both entities have pertaining to the access and use Of (LIVA) to generate energy." In Satterwhite's registration, filed on April 13, 2010, he wrote, "At this time I am requesting that the Unemployment benefits be extended." Lobbying certainly pays off!

Second highest: Assuming Mr. Satterwhite really did spend $100 million lobbying, the second highest total spent on lobbying disclosed so far for the third quarter of 2010, is $4.15 million by Boeing. We're eagerly awaiting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filing, which, if the past is any guide, should be more robust. While some organizations file early, third quarter lobbying reports aren't due until Oct. 20.

House Democrats have contributed nearly $40 million to the congressional campaign committee tasked with protecting the party's majority in the midterm elections in November, according to data obtained from TransparencyData.com. The contributions from 166 members of the 253 members of the House Democratic Caucus account for 37 percent of the contributions made to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). These contributions could help to build a well-funded defensive line against the insurgent Republicans. The DCCC has raised over $100 million this election cycle and has nearly $40 million in cash on hand, but has only spent $7 million so far on independent expenditures to protect their majority. According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has spent nearly double that of the DCCC so far this cycle. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer contributed the most of any member of the caucus sending $2.35 million from his campaign committee and political action committee (PAC) to the DCCC. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has sent the second most money to the DCCC with a total of $2.225 million. The third-ranking Democrat, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, is also the third-ranking giver to the DCCC with contributions totaling $2.2 million. One hundred and eight Democrats have contributed over $100,000 to the DCCC. The biggest givers include the party leadership and major committee chairmen including Reps. Henry Waxman ($800,000), George Miller ($765,000) and Barney Frank ($600,000).

Perhaps an admission of the treacherous electoral climate ninety-seven members have not given any money to the DCCC. Nearly all Republican House members have contributed to the NRCC.

Many of these members are freshmen or sophomores elected in the 2006 and 2008 Democratic waves and are now facing a tough path to reelection. These Democrats are relying on the contributions to the DCCC by their fellow caucus members.

Some of the non-contributors will be facing little competition in November yet still have not sent campaign cash to help their party. In fact, twenty Democrats listed as not yet contributing to the DCCC are currently in races rated as "Solid Democratic" by the Cook Political Report.

Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters, Dan Lipinski, Carolyn McCarthy, Pete Stark, Luis Gutierrez and Corrine Brown are among those who are facing little to no opposition and have not contributed to their party's campaign committee as of the last filing period. Some of these members are sitting on cash on hand piles of at least half-a-million dollars.

The contributions to the DCCC and the lack of contributions by some members produce a dynamic that highlights some of the Democratic Party's internal ideological divisions. Many of the non-contributing members are Democrats from the moderate-to-conservative wing of the party. These are also the same members who are facing difficult reelections.

Those contributing to the party committee are more representative of the party's liberal wing including many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While fifty-three of eighty-two Progressive Caucus members contributed to the committee, only seventeen out of fifty-four members of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition did as well.

Over the past two years, Progressive Caucus members have voiced concerns about deals crafted to win the votes of Blue Dog Democrats and other moderate and conservative Democrats. The make-up of the caucus after November 2 could likely determine the party's ideological temperament heading into the 2012 presidential cycle.

Feature photo credit: Dominic Alves

In today's edition, Roll Call profiles how members of Congress increasingly pimping their top aides as a way to raise campaign cash. The paper quoted one lobbyist as saying the main attractions were "the powers behind the throne."

Twice over the past couple of months Democrats have used senior staffers as the draw for lobbyists to attend and write checks. In June, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee held a fundraiser featuring Senate chiefs of staff. Also in June, the DCCC held a $1,000 a head fundraiser featuring leadership staffers and committee staff as the draw. Chaired by Yelberton Watkins, chief of staff to Majority Whip James Clyburn, the event raised nearly $250,000, according to the paper. Republicans are "offering up staffers as fundraising bait," too, according to Roll Call. They've held two fundraisers featuring chiefs of staff over the past year.

Roll Call quotes a lobbyist as saying the success of these events point to an irony in the lobbying reform laws Democrats enacted. "By restricting opportunities for lobbyists to mingle with staff, the law puts a premium on these types of fundraisers."

Defenders of the practice note that chiefs of staff, at least, frequently carry a political portfolio on top of their policy duties. Top staffers for lawmakers of both parties are often on the campaign payroll and play an important year-round role helping their bosses fill their campaign coffers. Others, including some lobbyists who attended last month's DCCC fundraiser, said such events can put both solicitors and donors in an uncomfortable position. They ask professionals who are usually careful to keep their daytime conversations limited to legislative matters to engage over the give-and-take of campaign money. "It did seem a little odd," said one lobbyist who went to the DCCC event last month. Added another, "I have mixed feelings about it, but it works. It's totally legal, but it probably pushes the envelope a little bit." A Republican lobbyist, who attended the NRSC event earlier this year, called the practice a "gray area." "It's a little uncomfortable. Obviously there needs to be some separation between the money side of politics and the policy side of politics. That's easy enough for Members of Congress because they're also candidates. That dance gets a little more diffuse at the staff level," he said. "But if both sides are doing it - it's mutually assured destruction."

This is how Washington works. Money gets you access to power. And real instantaneous disclosure would bring these practices to light more quickly and stop a lot of it.

Hat tip: Matt Stoller