Dave Levinthal

Longtime John Bolton adviser Mark Groombridge says that Bolton needed billionaire Robert Mercer’s attention and support — so badly, Bolton spent more than $1 million of his John Bolton Super PAC’s money on “comically bad” data from Mercer’s now-defunct voter profiling firm, Cambridge Analytica, which Mercer backed financially.. Mercer pumped $5 million into the John Bolton Super PAC from 2014 to 2017, the largest sum of any single donor.

Before Democrat Hillary Clinton “overturns Citizens United,” curtails “secret, unaccountable money in politics” and ends “the stranglehold that the wealthy and special interests have on so much of our government,” she has some business left to do. Namely, obliterating Republican Donald Trump with her historically massive, big-dollar, lobbyist-loaded campaign cash machine — one she says she’ll gladly disassemble once she wins the White House, but not before. And new campaign finance reports show Clinton is sticking to that plan as Election 2016 enters its final days.

In the last campaign finance filing before the election Clinton and her super PAC allies have reported raising $702 million through Oct. 19, compared to Trump and his supportive groups, who have raised $312 million. It is a startling rebuke to the no-longer-so-true truism that Republicans are the primary beneficiary of big political money. Clinton’s advantage will likely to hold to the end, as she and her super PAC allies reported $79 million in the bank as of Oct. 19, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of new campaign finance reports. Compare that to Trump and his super PAC supporters, who have about $32 million in reserve. Clinton’s campaign committee alone has raised more than twice as much money as Trump’s: $513 million versus $255 million. Her $62.4 million cash on hand as of Oct. 19 is nearly four times Trump’s $16 million.

Conventional journalistic wisdom holds that reporters and editors are referees on politics’ playing field — bastions of neutrality who mustn’t root for Team Red or Team Blue, either in word or deed. But during this decidedly unconventional election season, during which “the media” has itself become a prominent storyline, several hundred news professionals have aligned themselves with Clinton or Trump by personally donating money to one or the other.

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis. Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee. About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)

A for-profit university bankrolled by prominent tech firms and co-founded by futurist Ray Kurzweil is behind four separate super political action committees or PACs formed, according to interviews and documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Randi Willis, an official at Singularity University, confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that leaders at her institution will later in 2014 begin determining how to best use these new political committees, which could tap into the wealth of tech industry titans.

"Instead of waiting for people in office to come to us, the idea is, 'Let's put people in office,'" said Willis, the executive programs director for the university who also serves as the super PACs' treasurer. "We have a number of millionaires and billionaires who come through here and who we believe would consider contributing."

While hardly a household name, Singularity University is supported by a slew of corporations that are. Its listed "corporate founders" include Google, Cisco, Genentech, Nokia and Autodesk. Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have personally associated themselves with Singularity University. "Corporate partners" include General Electric, the Credit Union Roundtable and pharmaceutical company Celgene.

The Federal Election Commission, in voting 6-0, ruled in a relatively narrow fashion on an request from a single political action committee known as Make Your Laws PAC.

So what does the ruling mean both for this one PAC -- and all others? A primer:

• The FEC decided that federal political committees may accept $100 worth of Bitcoin per election, per contributor. Committees "should value that contribution based on the market value of bitcoins at the time the contribution is received," the ruling states.
• What if Bitcoin skyrockets in value after a political committee accepts its $100 worth? Bully for the committee. ´
• There's a catch: The FEC isn't allowing committees to make purchases with actual Bitcoin. But it isn't prohibiting them from doing so, either.
• In a related matter, the FEC ruled that "purchasing goods or services with bitcoins" that a political committee has purchased with campaign cash is "not permissible under Commission regulations."
• Federal law states candidate committees may this cycle accept $2,600 per election from individuals. But the FEC's Bitcoin ruling only OKs acceptance of $100 worth of Bitcoin. In other words, accept more than $100 per election at your own risk.
• How about super PACs, which may raise unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against politicians? Could they accept unlimited amounts of Bitcoin? Again, the FEC's decision did not speak to this issue.
• Must Bitcoin contributions be disclosed publicly? Yes, the FEC ruled, regardless of whether Bitcoin users want to remain anonymous.
• One important caveat, however: Since the FEC didn't rule on whether committees are allowed to directly spend Bitcoin on goods and services, it states in its ruling that "the Commission is not addressing how such purchases might be reported."
• Will the FEC consider Bitcoin contributions to be currency? Cash? And in-kind political contribution? That's not crystal clear.
• Could the FEC further regulate Bitcoin? Most certainly, although there's no immediate indication that it will.

The Federal Election Commission is asking Congress for nearly $3 million to address what it says are serious security breaches and an obsolete IT system. The requests follow an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity that in December revealed Chinese hackers infiltrated the agency’s computer systems.

Among the FEC’s requests contained in a 41-page budget request it submitted to Capitol Hill:

• $1.51 million for “IT security enhancement.”
• $650,000 for “cyber security related hardware.”
• $522,000 for implementation of a “trusted Internet connection.”
• $178,000 for “website incursion prevention and detection.”
• $130,000 for a staff member “dedicated to IT security.” The FEC is also asking for $545,000 dedicated to filling “critical vacancies.”

The agency has reduced its workforce by 8 percent since 2010, and during fiscal year 2013, left empty 19 of 24 vacant positions.

[March 7]