Click on the image to see it full size.

NPR yesterday ran a fascinating report on the spider web of connections between the major players in a handful of independent groups that have been spending tens of millions of dollars on election ads throughout the country—and hundreds of thousands of dollars in New Mexico.

NPR describes the independent groups as anything but independent. “It’s one big network: a Republican campaign operation, working outside the official party.” That’s a technique that the Democrats invented in 2008, but that Republicans have now mastered, with the help of the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited political spending, the network reported.

Here’s how Republican- and Democrat-aligned groups have been spending money in New Mexico.

Yesterday, The Independent reported that the outside spending in federal races in New Mexico was nearing $5 million through October 25 almost exclusively in the races between Jon Barela and Martin Heinrich, and between Harry Teague and Steve Pearce. Since then, spending on independent expenditures has increased to over $6 million.

American Action Network spent $275K against Heinrich; its director gave Martinez $100K

The conservative American Action Network has spent $550,000 in New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District targeting incumbent freshman Martin Heinrich. The American Action Network is organized as a 501(c)4 non-profit and so does not have to disclose its donors. So far, the American Action Network has spent nearly $10 million nationwide targeting vulnerable Democrats.

The American Action Network is closely aligned with another group, American Crossroads, which has spent millions of dollars so far this year. The two conservative groups share an office suite in Washington, D.C., but the connections go deeper than that.

Billionaire B. Wayne Hughes is both the director of American Action Network a major funder of American Crossroads, a group run by George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Hughes donated $1.5 million to American Crossroads and $100,000 to Susana Martinez.

Bob Perry gave $4.5 million to RGA; RGA gave Martinez $1.3 million and Perry and wife gave her $450K directly

Texas developer Bob Perry, of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth group, donated $7 million to American Crossroads and $4.5 million to the Republican Governor’s Association, both of which can accept unlimited donations.

Both Perry and the RGA have both been major contributors in New Mexico. Along with his wife Doylene, Perry donated $450,000 to Martinez through the latest campaign finance reports. The RGA has donated $1.25 million to Martinez’s election campaign as of the last campaign finance reports and today the Associated Press reported an additional $50,000 donation from the group to Martinez.

Carl Forti is the bridge between American Crossroads and Americans for Job Security. Forti, who was called “one of the smartest people in politics you’ve never heard of” by Karl Rove, is the political director of American Crossroads in addition to serving as a consultant to Americans for Job Security.

Americans for Job Security spent $55K against Teague

Americans for Job Security has targeted Rep. Harry Teague, spending nearly $55,000 against the incumbent freshman.

Forti founded the Black Rock Group with Michael Dubke, who was the co-founder and president of Americans for Job Security from 1997 to 2008. Dubke founded Crossroads Media in 2001 and still runs the group. This is the group that places ads for the Republican Governors Association, the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican National Committee, American Crossroads, Americans for Job Security and other Republican and conservative groups.

Forti also “handles public relations and media services” for the 60 Plus Association. That group has spent nearly $9,000 on a mailer targeting Teague.

Forti also was part of Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. Romney’s political action committee donated $10,000 to Martinez and headlined a fundraiser for Susana Martinez.

Defenders of Wildlife spent $800K attacking Pearce; DCCC spent $1 million against Barela

Groups backing Democrats have also spent significant amounts of money in New Mexico, although less than their counterparts. And it’s harder to make connections between them.

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, for example, has spent nearly $800,000 in opposition to Steve Pearce.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent nearly $1 million in opposition to Jon Barela in the 1st Congressional District, nearly half of which came in an ad buy earlier this week. The DCCC has also spent $500,000 in opposition to Steve Pearce in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District.

A group calling itself “Accountability 2010″ has spent nearly $213,000 opposing Pearce. There is little information on the group but R. Brooke Coleman is listed on the group’s FEC reports. Coleman is president of the New Fuels Alliance and has deep connections to the biofuels industry.

Pearce’s campaign says that the ads’ premise has already been proven false because of a faulty investigation by the ethics watchdog that accused him of wrongdoing.

Citizens for Responsiblity and Ethics in Washington (CREW) did admit that they failed to uncover a part of the story in the sale of Pearce’s company. Factcheck.org recounted what happened earlier this year with an ad by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund that made a similar claim:

CREW added Pearce to its annual list of “most corrupt” members in September 2007. The group alleged that Pearce “appears to have violated the Ethics in Government Act” for failing to disclose the 2003 sale of the assets of his company, Lea Fishing Tools, to Key Energy on the financial disclosure reports required to be filed annually by members of Congress.

After CREW’s 2007 report was published, Pearce sent a letter to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (known as the ethics committee) to determine whether he should have disclosed the transaction. On Oct. 11, 2007, the committee told Pearce in a letter that he did not violate the ethics rules. The panel concluded that Pearce sold the assets of his company — not the company itself. The company was renamed and continued to operate, so the sale of its assets did not have to be disclosed, the panel found.

CREW did not exactly give Pearce a clean bill of health. Pearce links to a press release from the group that admitted its error in not uncovering the letter between 2007 and 2008.

But the group says it “stand[s] by our original interpretation of the Ethics in Government Act.”

According to the Act, filers must report each purchase, sale, or exchange of real property or securities by themselves, their spouse, or dependent child when the value exceeds $1,000 in a calendar year [see statute here].  Contrary to the position taken by the House Ethics Committee in its letter, there is no exception in the Act for transactions involving the assets of a business actively engaged in a trade or business.  The only exception to the reporting requirement is that a transaction solely by and between the reporting individual, his spouse, or dependent children need not be reported.

Pearce also attacks CREW itself, noting that it has a liberal bent and has some big liberal donors.

The group’s list of crooked candidates in 2010 features 14 candidates, only three of which are Democrats. Two more are independents. One, Charlie Crist of Florida, was a Republican. The other, Jim Traficant of Ohio, was a Democrat. CREW’s list of worst governors features 9 Republicans to just two Democrats. One of those Democrats was New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

However, the group’s list of most corrupt members of Congress, the list which Pearce found himself on in 2007 and 2008, currently features eight Democrats and seven Republicans.

The DCCC ad also hits Pearce on his support of the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax would replace all other federal income taxes with a 23 percent federal income tax. The DCCC ad omits the fact that it would replace other income taxes.

However, there are questions if a 23 percent federal sales tax would work. Factcheck.org was dubious and says that the 23 percent number was “misleading.”

Washington Post domestic policy reporter Ezra Klein, writing in The American Prospect in 2008, was more colorful.

It would, to be sure, lower the tax burden on those making less than $24,000 a year. It would also lower the tax burden on those making more than $100,000 a year. Guess what happens to those in-between? The magical tax fairy waves her wand and increases their tax burden. That, apparently, is what FairTaxers believe to be unfair about the current system — it rests too lightly on the middle class. Indeed, in their own chartmeant to sell the plan, they subdivide the country into income brackets, the highest of which is “$75,223 and up.” That bracket, then, includes a schoolteacher making $80,000, and it includes billionaires like Warren Buffett, and those making tens of millions a year, like the Yankee’s Alex Rodriguez. As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are FairTax statistics. We live in a country where the top one percent of the country earned more than a fifth of all income in 2005. In that country, rich does not begin at $75,223. Indeed, in 2004, about 60 percent of Americans made between $25,000 and $100,000. I don’t know what you call raising taxes on the great middle, but progressive ain’t it.

“New Mexico voters deserve to know the truth about Steve Pearce’s record and his plans for a 23 percent tax on the food, gas and clothes New Mexicans buy every single day. Steve Pearce is just out of touch with southern New Mexico,” DCCC spokesman Andy Stone said in response to an e-mail request about the ad.

“Once again, Teague is rewarded for his support for the cap and trade energy tax, the failed stimulus and massive debt with misleading ads from Nancy Pelosi and outside liberal groups,” said Pearce campaign spokesman Jason Heffley. “For two months, Teague’s allies have peddled the same unsubstantiated smears in a desperate attempt to save their loyal ‘yes’ man.”

Though Heffley characterizes the ad as a reward for Teague’s cap and trade vote, the DCCC has aired ads that help Democratic candidates who did not vote for cap and trade or health care reform (Teague did not vote for health care reform).

The NRCC is attempting to catch the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee off guard with the buy, Hotline speculated. The DCCC has yet to reserve air time in the district.

Both the NRCC and DCCC have reserved airtime in the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which will have incumbent Democrat Harry Teague facing off against former Rep. Steve Pearce.

Update:

DCCC spokesman Andrew Stone responded to the news in an e-mail to The Independent. Stone said, “As poll after poll shows Jon Barela down, it no wonder the NRCC is coming to his rescue because Barela shares the same agenda as national Republicans: protect tax loopholes for companies that ship American jobs overseas.”

The strategy of the GOP is purely one of offense, says Politico, whereas the Democrats are playing defense, with a focus primarily on protecting incumbents:

While Democrats have reserved ad time in 60 races to date, the vast majority of those reservations — 54 of them — are designed to protect vulnerable incumbents. Republicans, on the other hand, are investing in an almost entirely offensive effort. Of the 40 seats covered in the NRCC buy, 39 are currently held by Democrats.

In addition to Heinrich and Teague, Steve Driehaus and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Debbie Halvorson of Illinois, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania and Betsy Markey of Colorado were among those to whom lobbyists were assigned to help with reelection.

The deputy executive director at the DCCC and political director for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Roll Call that it wasn’t unusual. “It’s one of the things the Speaker always asks for when talking with supporters around the country,” Jennifer Crider said.

“Pearce…strongly believes that we must fulfill our promises to our seniors and make it solvent for current and future generations. Fixes do not include privatization,” the campaign told Monahan.

But Democrats fired back with news stories from 2005 and 2007 that complicate that denial.

Republicans have hammered New Mexico Democratic Congressman Harry Teague for his vote on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act in recent months, especially since former Congressman Steve Pearce announced that he would run against Teague in November. With his move, it appears Democrats seem to have settled on their own wedge issue: Pearce’s support for a watered down version of George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization plans.

In an Albuquerque Journal article from February 6, 2005, Pearce appears to support some form of Social Security privatization.  As accessed via Lexis earlier today:

Pearce, who represents the 2nd Congressional District, said he agrees with the president’s call to partially privatize the system but not as drastically as has been proposed.

He suggested a plan that would allow workers to divert into a private account a portion of their 6.2 percent Social Security tax — but only on the first $50,000 of income. Social Security tax drawn from income between $50,001 and $90,000, at which point Social Security taxes are no longer imposed, would still go to the trust fund under Pearce’s proposal.

The entire 6.2 percent of wages currently paid by employers would still be paid into the Social Security trust fund, as well, Pearce said. He suggested starting personal private accounts on a small scale, watching the results for a set period of time, and then re-evaluating the idea.

“I don’t see how something complex will get through,” Pearce said. “It needs to be fairly simple.”

An article in the Clovis News-Journal from November 27, 2007 also captured Pearce’s support for privatizing Social Security:

Following up on a question about Medicare, Pearce said he had supported President Bush’s plan to turn over a portion of Americans’ Social Security so they could invest it themselves. He said the proposal was met with skepticism by Washington and the public.

“It is our responsibility to deal with these problems and not just keep sweeping them along,” Pearce said.

“Why can’t former Congressman Pearce just be straight with southern New Mexicans about his support of privatizing Social Security? After all, voters deserve much better than this Steve Pearce ‘he was for it before he was against it’ double talk,” said Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “With Pearce talking out of both sides of his mouth about his support for this risky privatization scheme it begs the question: What else is Pearce willing to say to get elected?”

The top vulnerable Democrat in terms of both money raised and money spent is U.S. Rep. Scott Murphy of New York’s 20th Congressional District. His number is skewed by the fact that he won his seat from a close special election on March 31 after U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was named to replace Hillary Clinton after Clinton was confirmed as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State and relinquished her seat in the Senate.

Heinrich was one of 12 “Frontline Democrats” who actually raised more money from individuals than from Political Action Committee (PACs). Teague raised 49 percent of his money from individuals.

The DCCC pushed back on some of Pearce’s attacks on Teague’s fiscal record.

“With his reckless fiscal leadership having helped create the problem, Steve Pearce’s rhetoric about fighting for New Mexico families just doesn’t match up with reality,” Andy Stone, Western Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is quoted as saying in a statement. “Pearce’s record is dripping with the kind of hypocrisy that New Mexicans rejected in the last election.”

The DCCC said that votes by Pearce for policies advocated by former President George W. Bush “created the economic crisis, growing the federal debt by $2.3 trillion from $3.5 trillion to $5.8 trillion.”

According to Roll Call, the “Dem glitterati were feting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s former executive director, Brian Wolff.”

So who were those “Dem glitterati?”

The guest list included Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Reps. Scott Murphy (N.Y.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), Anna Eshoo (Calif.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Bruce Braley (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), John Hall (N.Y.) and John Adler (N.J.). 

The Plum Line notes that Pelosi “supports Republican calls for the CIA to release all the notes and briefings on her torture briefing, and she has repeatedly called for a Truth Commission on how the Bush torture program came to be.”

However, the ad is referring to a Republican motion to create “a select subcommittee to investigate the speaker’s allegations” according to Politico.

“The Democrats have once again shown they’d rather protect their Speaker than uncover the truth,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “For Pelosi to insinuate that the CIA lied to her is bad enough, but for her puppets to then block an investigation into her claims is even worse.”

Michigan Republican Pete Hoekstra himself accused the CIA of misleading Congress last year. An investigation found that some CIA operatives did, indeed, mislead Congress.

“The tired attacks from the Republican Party of No are just an attempt to distract from the progress President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are making on jobs, health care, and energy,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Press Secretary Ryan Rudominer told Hotline on Call. “Polls show that Americans are reacting badly to House Republicans lack of ideas, obstruction, and commitment to the politics of the past.”

In addition to the radio ads for six members of Congress, the NRCC is going to start robocalls in ten Democratic-held districts on the CIA issue.

The NRCC didn’t spend any money trying to defeat Teague in November’s election, while the DCCC spent over $1.5 million on Teague’s behalf.