GOP Congressional Candidate Using Campaign Money Scheme Pioneered by…Stephen Colbert

Using a gambit no one has ever attempted—save for the Comedy Central host—GOPer Ryan Zinke is taking super-PACs to a new extreme.

Pete Marovich/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Ryan Zinke, a Republican running for Congress in Montana, is using a novel scheme to bankroll his congressional campaign—one that originated with Stephen Colbert.

In January 2012, Colbert summoned Daily Show host Jon Stewart and Trevor Potter, a campaign finance expert, to the Colbert Report studio for a surprise announcement: Colbert was handing control of his super-PAC—a political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political races—to Stewart. The two comedians signed a two-page document, then held hands and locked eyes while Potter bellowed the words, “Colbert super-PAC transfer, activate!” Colbert then announced that he was forming an exploratory committee to weigh a run for “President of the United States of South Carolina.” Stewart, meanwhile, renamed Colbert’s super-PAC the Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC, and promised Colbert he would run ads to support Colbert’s presidential bid.

The point of Colbert and Stewart’s comedy bit was to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision had rendered campaign finance law remarkably flimsy—so weak that it was legal for a person to start a super-PAC, raise unlimited heaps of cash from big-money donors for that super-PAC, quit the super-PAC, and then run for federal office supported by that super-PAC. Here was an easy way to escape the $2,500 limit on what individuals may give to federal candidates.

Now Ryan Zinke—a 52-year-old ex-Navy SEAL and former state senator who is running to be Montana’s only congressman—is putting Colbert’s theory to the test. In 2012, Zinke founded Special Operations for America (SOFA) as a super-PAC backing Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president. The group, which Zinke founded out of anger that Obama was “taking credit” for the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, attracted national attention and raised more than $100,000 during the 2012 campaign. After Romney lost, the super-PAC kept raising money. Then, on September 30, Zinke quit the group he founded, handing control to former Navy SEAL Gary Stubblefield—his Jon Stewart. During that time, SOFA’s Facebook page and Twitter feed hummed with “draft Zinke” web ads for the Ryan Zinke Exploratory Committee. Three weeks later, on October 21, Zinke declared his candidacy—and SOFA announced that it would lend its fundraising muscle and substantial war chest to help its little-known former chairman get elected. “Show your support for Ryan Zinke by donating now!” a page on SOFA’s website proclaims.

“No one has really pushed the boundaries of super-PACs in this direction, to my knowledge,” says Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. (Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California-Irvine, jokes in an email that the only precedent he can think of is Colbert’s “campaign.”) That doesn’t mean that what SOFA and Zinke are doing is illegal. The Federal Election Commission prohibits super-PACs from coordinating with candidates or their campaigns, but it defines “coordination” as specific conversations about advertising strategy. Founding a super-PAC, quitting the super-PAC, and running for Congress with the support of that super-PAC is not considered coordination.

Ryan says that in his reading of election law, SOFA is still subject to the $5,000 limit on what individuals can give to traditional PACs. This is because current law spells out donation limits for organizations that were once associated with a federal candidate. Practically, this means SOFA should be prepared to show the Federal Election Commission that it did not spend more than $5,000 from any given donor on advertising for Zinke. But Ryan notes the FEC hasn’t issued any rules saying whether this type of ban applies to super-PACs. SOFA would be the first super-PAC to test the issue.

SOFA is a formidable political ally for Zinke. In its most recent filings with the FEC, which cover a period ending June 30, the super-PAC reported $222,287 cash on hand—the rough equivalent of all the outside money spent on Montana’s congressional race in 2012. Filings also show that the end of the presidential election did nothing to slow SOFA’s fundraising—in fact, the group has raised more money since the end of presidential election than it did during the 2012 cycle, almost all of it from individual donors who gave less than $5,000. From January to June of this year, SOFA raised more than $400,000; of that, it spent only about $182,000.

SOFA’s website currently promises to support one other candidate—Tom Cotton, a House member from Arkansas who is running for senator. But the group’s Twitter and Facebook feeds are almost exclusively devoted to lauding Zinke.

Neither Zinke’s campaign nor Special Forces for America responded to repeated requests for comment.

Zinke, a Montana native, spent several years on SEAL Team 6 during the ’90s before serving intermittently in Iraq from 2004 to 2008. He served in the Montana state Senate for one term before becoming the running mate of 2010 Montana gubernatorial hopeful Neil Livingstone. But he only rose to national prominence in July 2012, when he founded SOFA and began to attract attention from cable news networks.

In July of that year, Zinke told Sean Hannity he wasn’t taking a paycheck from SOFA. But the super-PAC’s FEC filings suggest otherwise. From late July 2012 to March 2013, the super-PAC paid $26,317.11 to Continental Divide International for “fundraising consulting” and “strategy consulting.” Zinke’s LinkedIn page says he is the CEO of Continental Divide International. The company’s purpose is unclear; a public records search shows that both Zinke and his wife, Lolita, are officers. In addition to the consulting fees, SOFA reimbursed Continental Divide International more than $3,000 for unspecified expenses and paid for Zinke to travel to the Republican National Committee in Tampa and the Conservative Political Action Conference in Denver, as well as trips to Las Vegas, Dallas, and San Antonio.

Zinke left the SEALs under unclear circumstances. “There were ethics issues around his travel. He was using government travel to visit his home in Montana,” a senior Defense Department official who had served as a Navy SEAL told BuzzFeed‘s Michael Hastings shortly after Zinke founded SOFA. “He got caught. That’s why he left the SEALs.” Zinke explained that the “incident with the travel claims” was actually the result of Zinke’s attempt to set up SEAL training in Montana. “I was very aggressive wanting to open up opportunities in Montana,” he told Hastings. “I’m sure I pissed people off along the way.”

For now, SOFA is busy campaigning for Zinke. Its Facebook posts have directed donors to give to his exploratory committee. Others counted down to his congressional announcement. Now that he’s officially running, SOFA is sharing links to his media appearances and directing followers to his website. Zinke, meanwhile, is busy spreading his message—which focuses on his support for the Second Amendment and for energy independence, and his belief that America is turning into Bosnia-Herzegovina or Iraq. “As a SEAL commander with 23 years, I’ve seen what happens when people no longer have faith in government,” he warned at his campaign launch. “It is the Middle East. It is Africa. Never in my lifetime would I ever think that our country would be compared to a third-world nation.” SOFA came out with a new fundraising plea the very next day. “Forward this email to all friends, family and anyone that seeks to preserve America’s Exceptionalism,” it read. “Donate to Special Operations for America to support candidates like Ryan Zinke.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate