The Conservative Super PACs (CCPs) are the largest fundraising vehicles for political campaigns and candidates.
In 2018, the CCPs raised more than $4.2 billion.
But the group’s super PACs have been criticized for their high spending.
Now, some are taking aim at the super PACs, saying they should be more responsible for the campaigns’ fundraising efforts.
That’s because the CEPs have traditionally been responsible for much of the spending for their campaigns.
Now the super PAC’s critics say the CPPs should be better at fundraising.
The super PACs’ fundraising strategy can be traced back to the 1980s, when Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for the Senate and wanted to make sure that all candidates were funded through the CCCs.
So he created a super PAC called the Coleman Political Action Committee, or PACPAC, and set out to raise money through the PACPAC.
Coleman later became the head of the CPA PAC.
But because the superPACs are supposed to be independent, they have historically been a bit of a “dark money” operation.
“When I became chair of the PAC PAC in 1991, I had a pretty solid foundation,” said Dan Balz, the former CPAPAC chairman.
“I think I could have made it a little more effective, but I think the CPMPAC really took the reins.
We just didn’t think that was appropriate.
And that was really the core of what we were trying to accomplish.
It wasn’t just for political purposes.
We were trying the same thing with the CCO PAC.”
The CCOPAC started out with a very small budget.
The PAC raised $5 million that year.
In 1993, Balz told The Washington Post, the PAC raised a little over $10 million in revenue.
But it took years for the PAC to grow beyond that, and in 1996, the super committee had to be bailed out by a taxpayer bailout.
The next year, in 1998, the Senate passed a spending bill that funded the PAC until it closed in 2000.
The bill included a provision to allow the super-PACs to raise unlimited amounts of money through a combination of individual contributions and super PAC contributions.
But Balz said the PAC took too long to raise the money, and the super committees were unable to do it.
In 2001, the legislation was amended to allow super PACs to raise independent money.
And in 2003, the Bush-Cheney administration approved the CPE Act, which would allow the PACs to begin to raise funds through the super fund.
And it was then that the super money began to flow.
But that’s not what the super groups are doing, according to several former CPPPAC officials.
The CPP PACs, they claim, have been too dependent on the PACECs to be able to raise enough independent money to cover their expenses.
And the super CPP PAC was also too dependent upon the PAC, they say.
“The PACEC’s money is just the icing on the cake,” said one former CPO PAC official, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
“They’re basically the owners of PACPAC.”
The super PAC is also being criticized for being a political action committee, or PACs, rather than a political committee.
“PACPACs should have been a vehicle to raise outside money and support candidates,” said Balz.
“There was never a question about it.
They were just a way for them to raise their money.”
The PACPAC was one of the few super PACs that was allowed to spend money directly on candidates.
It was allowed $25,000 a month for advertising, but it could also spend up to $5,000 on direct mail and telephone solicitations.
Balz also pointed out that it had to comply with campaign finance rules.
The first-time FEC commissioner, Michael McCurry, has been a vocal critic of PAC PAC’s since it was approved.
“For PACs to be considered political committees, they should meet certain requirements,” he said in a statement.
“In the case of PAC, those requirements include making expenditures to support candidates, as well as reporting expenditures directly to the Federal Election Commission and paying a 10 percent disclosure tax on these expenditures.
These are basic requirements to qualify as a political party.”
But Balzz says that PACPAC’s fundraising strategy has not been as good as the PAC’s.
“It is not uncommon to see PACPAC spending $25K on direct-mail and telephone solicitation ads, and that is a lot of money to spend on a campaign,” he says.
“But it is a fraction of what a PACPAC spent on direct political activity in the 2012 election cycle.”
In fact, in the first quarter of 2018, PACPAC reported spending $6,000 to advertise to its members, but that figure was less than half what the PAC spent on its direct political advertising in the entire first quarter