My mailbox has been infested the last few weeks with a bunch of silly pro-Katie Britt flyers paid for by a group calling itself “Alabama Christian Conservatives.”
Aside from insulting my intelligence with such juvenile propaganda, I found the group’s cynical attempt to exploit my connection to those three words — Alabama, Conservative, and Christian — especially aggravating, and the use of that last one a bit irreverent considering the manipulative language used on the flyers.
So, I set out to find out just who the Alabama Conservative Christians really are.
And guess what?
It’s just a made-up name for a political action committee registered to some guy’s house in Austin, Texas, according to records at the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
It received much of the millions it spent on these flyers and other advertisements from another political action committee (PAC), which itself received millions from another PAC, which in turn collected money from yet even more PACs, and so on.
In the end, though, the Texas PAC posing as an Alabama Christian organization got most of its money from these guys, who together gave almost $15 million to it and other PACs supporting Katie Britt and opposing Mike Durant and Mo Brooks:
And that’s just one money trail that I followed. There are probably more.
It’s a shell game that most people aren’t inclined to follow, but the receipts are there and regularly updated for anyone who wishes to look:
Step 1: Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC
$10.9 million — That’s at least how much money was collected by the Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC since it was founded last September, according to FEC records.
Some of the Pac’s money came from relatively small donations for this sort of game, like $50,000 from an Illinois company called Medical Pro and another $50,000 from billionaire private equity investor Marc Rowan (who, as a Jewish resident of New York City, seems an unusual candidate for membership in an organization called the Alabama Christian Conservatives).
However, about 96% of the fund came from these three sources:
- $5.5 million was transferred in from Defend America PAC (this is the fund sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby).
- $3 million was transferred in from Alabama’s Future PAC (more on it later).
- $2 million came from Francisco Collazo, chairman and founder of COLSA, a Huntsville-based engineering and service support company (we’ll see his name again).
Of that, about:
- $3.1 million was spent supporting Katie Britt,
- That may be a confusing categorization because most of the flyers I received contained pro-Britt language on one side and language critical of her opponents on the other.
- $464,000 was spent opposing Mike Durant,
- $252,000 was spent opposing Mo Brooks,
- $4.7 million was transferred to the Alabama RINO PAC.
Step 2: Alabama RINO PAC
FEC records show that Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC accounted for 99.9% of all the money in the Alabama RINO PAC’s bank account as of early June.
Of that, about:
- $2.6 million was spent opposing Mike Durant.
- $790,000 was spent opposing Mo Brooks.
And here’s something interesting: both Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC and Alabama RINO PAC are both registered to the same residential address in Austin, Texas. State records show this is also the address of the Burton Strategy Group, and the registered agent is Jeff J. Burton. He’s a political consultant and lobbyist who once worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Why transfer money between two PACs that are funded by the same donors, operated by the same person, run out of the same house, and targeting the same race?
The shell game continues…
Step 3: Alabama’s Future PAC
Now, back to Alabama’s Future PAC, which transferred $3 million to the Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC back in early April.
Who are they?
FEC records show the address of Alabama’s Future is a rented PostNet mailbox next to Winn-Dixie in Rainbow City, Alabama. (That’s a dismal metaphor for our state’s “future,” by the way.)
$7.1 million — That’s how much money the Alabama Future’s PAC has collected since it was founded last October, according to the latest FEC records. The money came from just four sources:
- $3 million came from Great Southern Wood Preserving, Inc. That’s the company owned by Jimmy Rane, the YellaWood guy from Abbeville.
- $2 million was transferred in from Senate Leadership Fund PAC. That’s the fund affiliated with Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
- (By the way, Mitch McConnell? Big Trump supporter there! And he’s funding ads talking about Mo Brooks bailing on Trump? Laughable. Can’t we see we’re getting played?)
- $2 million came from Francisco Collazo, who also gave $2 million directly to Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC.
- $100,000 came from Warren Stephens, an investment banker who lives in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Of that, about:
- $3.6 million was spent opposing Mo Brooks,
- $357,000 was spent supporting Katie Britt,
- $3 million was transferred to Alabama Christian Conservatives PAC … who sent me those ridiculous flyers.
Step 4: Senate Leadership Fund PAC and Defend America PAC
These two PACs have spent years collecting millions upon millions from all sorts of sources — from individuals like Marc Rowan and Warren Stephens, from companies like RAI Services, which makes cigarettes (Camel, Newport, Lucky Strike, etc.), and, of course, from other PACs, like those established by FedEx and General Electric.
But here’s where you hike this trail for yourself, because it’s virtually endless.
Anyone with an internet connection and a healthy level of curiosity can follow these trails by visiting the website of the Federal Election Commission: https://www.fec.gov.
Once there, enter some names in the search box and start exploring. One thing will lead to another, and your eyes will be slowly opened to the level of money swamping our democracy.
The Game
I had to sketch this whole thing out on a legal pad to keep track of who was giving what to who. Here’s a better version:
The Opposing View
I reached out to Katie Britt’s campaign spokesman for her opinion about this, but he didn’t respond.
In all likelihood, however, the Britt campaign didn’t make the rookie mistake of coordinating with the people who designed and launched those advertisements. That’s against the law.
And based on what I’ve heard from people who know her, Katie Britt is a serious person, tough and smart, and even though I don’t prefer candidates who spent their formative years working in machine-like political systems and representing business interests (for the very reason I’m writing this article), she’s certainly qualified for the job.
Some of these donors are likely decent people, too, who have probably spent equal amounts of money — if not more — on various philanthropic endeavors across the state. Many have undoubtedly done a great deal of good, and the reason why at least some of them are putting up so much money is because they sincerely believe Katie Britt will be a great senator for Alabama, and, conversely, that Michael Durant and Mo Brooks wouldn’t be.
The problem isn’t necessarily with the people who fund these gigantic PACs; it’s with a process that incentivizes some of those people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn’t.
Is This Legal?
These guys have the best lawyers money can buy. So, yes, it’s probably all legal.
But should it be?
Progressives say no, and that we need to get money out of elections entirely. One of their proposals is to have taxpayer-funded campaigns, where once a certain number of candidates achieve some type of popularity benchmark, they’re all given the same amount of money. This is like the concept behind NASCAR. Everything is pretty much stock except for the driver and the crew, or in this case, the candidate and the campaign staff.
Libertarians say yes, it should certainly be legal, but add that campaign donations shouldn’t have any restrictions at all. None. We would never know where our politicians would get their campaign money in such a world.
Conservatism, as usual, seeks the path that balances liberty with order:
- Liberty: A free man must be able to spend his money however he wishes. And if our First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech protects anything, it’s a citizen’s right to speak for or against someone who wishes to be elected to a government office. That shouldn’t matter if a citizen exercises that freedom by holding a handmade poster in the town square or by writing a check for a million dollar’s worth of television commercials.
- Order: But … millionaires like Jimmy Rane and Francisco Collazo have no more of a say in electing a candidate than you or I do. One man, one vote. But we know that the principle of reciprocity is deeply imbedded in human nature, i.e., when someone gives you something of value, you tend to feel compelled to give them something in return.
That’s especially dangerous when that “something in return” is government policy favorable to a specific person.
So, we worry that however ethical and moral a contributor and a candidate may be, the principle of reciprocity will creep into their relationship, and then that millionaire has more of a say than you or I do.
That ain’t democracy.
It’s aristocracy.
Try that long enough, and the people will rise and tear the whole thing down, the good and the bad. It happens all the time.
On the liberty side of the balance, our nation allows millionaires to spend their money speaking for or against any candidate they wish. And it allows them to form political action committees to manage exactly how that’s done.
But on the order side of the balance, our nation requires all contributions and all spending on elections to be a matter of public record. Dragging all of this out into the sunshine helps de-incentivize reciprocity … but it requires people to look.
On the federal level, you can look at the files maintained by the Federal Election Commission. On the state level, you can look at the Secretary of State’s office.
But Is This Moral?
It’s legal, and it probably should remain that way, but why the shell game?
Why all the phony-sounding names, the rented mailboxes, the out-of-state political operatives, and seriously … why all the stupid and insulting advertisements, why all the twisting of words to imply something that these contributors know is, at best, misleading?
I doubt these guys would be proud of the tactics used on these flyers if viewed through the lens of their faith. If they wouldn’t stand up in church and say the same things said and printed in those campaign ads, they shouldn’t pay other people to say and write them, either.
I know there are some, especially the political hacks out there, who would say, “Pepper, this is just the way it works. The other side does it, too, and we’ll lose if we don’t.”
Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it, especially all of its shadier aspects.
But maybe they’re just looking at this like the businessmen most of them are. It’s all just another transaction. Another deal. Something else they have to buy or sell to make a profit.
And that’s what worries me most.
Because exactly what … or exactly who … are they buying and selling?
J. Pepper Bryars is Alabama’s only reader-supported conservative journalist. You can support his writing by subscribing at https://jpepper.substack.com/subscribe.
