Jeb Bush's Campaign And Super PAC Has Raised $114 Million In Six Months

NY Times: Jeb Bush's Campaign And Allied Super PAC “Have Amassed More Than $114 Million In Campaign Cash.” On July 9, Jeb Bush and the affiliated super PAC, Right to Rise, issued their first financial disclosures since Bush formally announced his candidacy for president. Right to Rise announced it had raised $103 million over the last six months, while Bush's official campaign had raised $11.4 million since his announcement on June 15, bringing the total campaign war chest to $114 million. As The New York Times noted, Bush previously “personally raised money for the super PAC ... operating under the assumption that he was free to do so because he was not yet a declared presidential candidate.” [The New York Times, 7/9/15]

Mainstream Media Report On Unprecedented Money Bush's Super PAC Raised, But Downplay His Questionable Role In Fundraising

AP: “He Helped Raise The Money, But Bush Has No Direct Control Over 90 Percent Of His New Haul.” The Associated Press reported how Bush “helped raise” the millions, but had “no direct control” over the $103 raised by the Super PAC:

He helped raise the money, but Bush has no direct control over 90 percent of his new haul. The total announced Thursday includes $103 million raised by Right to Rise, a super PAC that will support Bush in the crowded GOP contest. The rest, $11.4 million, came into Bush's formal campaign. [AP, 7/9/15]

The Wall Street Journal Made No Mention Of Bush Raising Money For Super PAC Prior To Campaign Announcement. The Wall Street Journal reported on the amount of money raised by the Bush-affiliated super PAC, but made no mention of the fact that Bush fundraised for the super PAC prior to his formal candidacy announcement, noting: 

Only one-tenth of Mr. Bush's haul went to his Miami-based campaign, with the rest going to the technically independent super PAC, which is based in California and is legally barred from coordinating its activities with his team.

The imbalance exists partly because the super PAC has been raising money since January, while Mr. Bush didn't launch his campaign until mid-June, only two weeks ahead of the second-quarter fundraising deadline. But since the super PAC can raise money without contribution caps, it is expected to continue to overpower the campaign. [The Wall Street Journal, 7/9/15]

Legal Experts And Campaign Watchdogs Have Scrutinized The Legality Of Bush's PAC Fundraising 

FEC Chair: Bush's Delay Of Campaign Announcement To Fundraise With Super PAC Was “Absurd.” Vox.com reported in April how Bush was delaying his formal presidential announcement to continue fundraising for his super PAC, leading to complaints filed with the FEC about the campaign's behavior:

More than 100 days ago, Jeb Bush announced that he'd “decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.” Yet despite months of big-dollar fundraising for his PAC and Super PAC, Bush not only hasn't launched a campaign yet -- he hasn't launched an exploratory committee or even told the FEC he's considering a bid, as candidates who are “testing the waters” are supposed to do.

Why not? According to Politico, it's about money. Right now, Bush -- since he's not a federal officeholder or a candidate -- can personally ask for huge, unlimited donations for his Super PAC. Once he tells the FEC he's officially considering a candidacy, though, he'd have to cut that out. (His Super PAC would still be able to raise huge amounts, but Bush just wouldn't be able to personally ask for donations of above a few thousand dollars anymore.)

[...]

Now, everyone knows Hillary Clinton is considering a campaign, too, and she hasn't declared that to the FEC either. But there's a huge difference -- Clinton isn't doing any political fundraising at the moment, but Bush is. So are several other candidates, including Democrat Martin O'Malley and Republicans Scott Walker and Rick Santorum (though they apparently haven't been able to raise anywhere near as much money as Bush). Two advocacy groups, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, filed FEC complaints for this behavior last week.

Before the complaints were submitted, FEC chair Ann Ravel wrote an op-ed saying that behavior like Bush's is “absurd.” Once a certain amount of money is raised, Ravel wrote, politicians “are either exploring a run for office or they are candidates.” They “cannot avoid campaign finance laws merely by not calling themselves candidates,” she continued. [Vox.com, 4/6/15]

Legal Experts: Bush “Tests The Legal Definition Of Candidate” By Raising PAC Money Without Announcing Run. In June The New York Times reported how Jeb Bush was “test[ing] the legal definition of [a] candidate” by delaying the announcement of his candidacy in order to continue to coordinate with his PAC. Pointing to a recent letter from campaign watchdog groups urging the Department of Justice to investigate whether Bush had broken the law by doing so, the Times quoted legal experts claiming that Bush is “mak[ing] a mockery” of campaign laws:

The lawyers say Mr. Bush, a former Florida governor, is stretching the limits of election law by crisscrossing the country, hiring a political team and raising tens of millions of dollars at fund-raisers, all without declaring -- except once, by mistake -- that he is a candidate.

Some election experts say Mr. Bush passed the legal threshold to be considered a candidate months ago, even if he has not formally acknowledged it. Federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate and thus subject to the spending and disclosure restrictions. Some limited activities are allowed for candidates who are merely “testing the waters” for a run.

[...]

Last week, two campaign watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, called on the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Mr. Bush had broken election law by evading restrictions on candidates.

The groups called his noncandidacy “a charade” and called on prosecutors to intervene because they said the F.E.C. -- perpetually gridlocked -- was unlikely to do anything. [The New York Times, 6/3/15]