Club for Growth
| Club for Growth | |
 | |
| Basic facts | |
| Location: | Washington, D.C. |
| Type: | 501(c)(4) |
| Affiliation: | Republican |
| Top official: | David McIntosh, President |
| Year founded: | 1999 |
| Website: | Official website |
| Connections | |
| •Club for Growth PAC • Club for Growth Action (Super PAC) | |
The Club for Growth is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that describes itself as "the leading free-enterprise advocacy group in the nation."[1]
The Club for Growth has two political arms, the Club for Growth PAC and Club for Growth Action, a super PAC. The organization was founded in 1999 and is based in Washington, D.C.[2]
Mission
As of 2014, the Club for Growth's mission statement was as follows:[3]
| “ |
Club for Growth is a nationwide nonprofit membership organization dedicated to promoting public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, and training and educational activity and may engage in any other lawful purpose.[4] |
” |
Background
The Club for Growth was founded in 1999 and is based in Washington, D.C.[2]
Related groups
Club for Growth can refer to one of a number of organizations with separate missions and activities. All of the Club for Growth organizations focus on government spending and issues of economic policy, but the separate organizations vary by the degree to which they can and do participate in politics.
| Club for Growth related groups | ||
|---|---|---|
| Club for Growth | Club for Growth PAC | Club for Growth Action |
| 501(c)(4) | PAC | Super PAC |
| Club for Growth can legally participate in political activity in support of or opposition to candidates for office. These political activities cannot be the organization's primary activities and cannot be direct donations to a candidate for office or a candidate's committee. Club for Growth endorses candidates for office and runs advocacy campaigns supporting and opposing candidates based on their stances on government spending and economic policy. | Club for Growth PAC is a federal political action committee. The PAC can spend money in electoral politics by donating to parties or candidates they support, subject to contribution limits defined by state and federal election agencies. | Club for Growth Action can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. The group cannot contribute directly to a politician or political party, but it can spend independently to campaign for or against political figures. Club for Growth Action endorses and spends money in races that concern government spending and economic policy. |
Policies
As of March 2016, the organization's website listed the following key areas of focus:
| Club for Growth policies | |
|---|---|
| Government spending | |
| Issue | Policy recommendations |
| "The government has grown so large that the activities of hundreds of the federal government’s agencies are beyond the knowledge and understanding of its citizens. In fact, the federal government has grown to such an enormous, overreaching extent that our representatives in Congress cannot adequately oversee and control its activities. It is imperative for lawmakers to get the nation’s finances in order immediately by applying a fiscally conservative approach to federal spending and restructuring unsustainable entitlement programs. Putting off the difficult decisions until the federal budget’s condition deteriorates further will only result in much harsher and more expensive policy choices down the road."[5] | "Dramatically reduce discretionary spending. Rein in runaway entitlement spending through market-based reforms. Reform the US federal budget process with a Balanced Budget Amendment. Identify programs in the budget that can be cut, terminated, transferred to the states, or privatized."[5] |
| Education | |
| Issue | Policy recommendations |
| "Too many public schools are failing at their job of educating students. Parents of all income levels should have the opportunity to choose for their children the best education choice available to them, whether in public, private, religious, or home schools. Providing choice, from primary to high school, will empower parents to choose high performing schools for their children, giving them a better education and better future. Students should be free to attend a safe and effective school rather than being assigned to a chronically underperforming school. The current monopoly system, in which government is both the primary funder and provider of education, has not served students well. A system based on competition, freedom, flexibility, and accountability to parents will produce a higher level of excellence and better equip the next generation of Americans."[6] | "Close down the U.S. Department of Education and end the federal government’s role in education. Take further steps to empower parents through choice of schools. Continue and improve the charter school system. Provide school vouchers to give more control and choice to parents."[6] |
| Entitlements | |
| Issue | Policy recommendations |
| "Entitlement programs are the single largest drivers of our nation’s mounting debt and must be reformed immediately before it’s too late. Not only is our current entitlement system bankrupting our nation, it is simply unsustainable in its current form."[7] | "Repeal ObamaCare. Enact Medicare reform that utilizes a premium-support function to replace the current system. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Create Social Security personal retirement accounts that workers would own and could use to build nest eggs for retirement."[7] |
| Regulation | |
| Issue | Policy recommendations |
| "Federal regulatory agencies exert a hidden tax on American consumers and the U.S. economy. These costs come in various forms: the cost of paperwork filled out by businesses, higher prices at stores, hampered innovation, and sometimes even reduced health and safety. While some regulation is necessary, such as rules to protect against fraud, much of it is neither needed nor productive. Policymakers should work to reduce the overall burden of regulatory government on Americans."[8] | "Make regulatory reform a major priority. Further strengthen the regulatory review processes. Have Congress reclaim its delegation powers granted to it by the Constitution in order to prevent the executive branch from promulgating regulatory rules without congressional authority."[8] |
| Taxes | |
| Issue | Policy recommendations |
| "The goal of tax policy should be to raise only the amount of money needed to fund legitimate functions of government while doing the least amount of damage to the economy and respecting the principle of treating taxpayers equally."[9] | "Tax cuts are just one step toward the ideal of replacing our outdated and complex Federal Tax Code with a modern and simple tax. Through comprehensive tax reform, either a flat tax or a single-rate national sales tax (like the Fair Tax) would spur economic growth, be fairer, and would lower compliance costs. A flat tax, for example, has a low tax rate and eliminates the current Tax Code’s multiple taxes on saving and investment. A flat tax also eliminates special preferences and penalties that lead individuals and businesses too often to make choices based on tax considerations rather than on economic benefits. This is why a flat tax would boost growth. Since a flat tax also is based on the principle that all taxpayers are treated equally regardless of how they earn their income, how they spend their income, or the level of their income, the system is both morally and economically superior to the current Internal Revenue Code."[9] |
| Tort reform | |
| Issue | |
| "The U.S. tort system costs our economy billions of dollars each year. This is particularly important during an economic downturn when abusive litigation and attempts to regulate through litigation result in such high costs and liability that harms economic growth. The huge increase in medical malpractice insurance rates, for example, has contributed significantly to the problems in our healthcare system, making it difficult for doctors to provide care, encouraging the harmful practice of “defensive medicine,” and raising the costs of obtaining quality healthcare for everyone. Lawmakers must work, within Constitutional bounds, to achieve a legal system that is not unnecessarily punitive and is fair, predictable, and just to all parties."[10] | |
Work
Congressional scorecard
The Club for Growth publishes a scorecard for members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. Congressional members are scored based on their votes on issues which impact the U.S. economy, including votes related to income tax, death tax, government spending, Social Security, free trade, tort law, tax policy, school choice, and deregulation.[11][12]
As of March 2016, the methodology for the Club for Growth's scorecards was as follows:[12]
| “ |
Scores are computed on a scale of 0 to 100. Each vote or action in the rating is assigned a certain number of points depending on its relative importance. Absences are not counted against a Member, though we reserve the right to do so if, in our judgment, an absence was used to duck taking a position. To provide some additional guidance concerning the scores, each lawmaker was ranked. Members with 0% scores are, by default, ranked #435 in the House and #100 in the Senate. Scores and ranks cannot be directly compared between the House and Senate as different votes were taken in each chamber. We have also provided a “Lifetime Score” for each Member of Congress. This is a simple average of the scores from 2014 and all previous years where the lawmaker earned a score in a Club for Growth rating. In some cases a lawmaker was not present for enough votes for a meaningful score or ranking to be computed and in such cases “n.a.” for not applicable appears. In computing lifetime scores, years with “n.a.” listed instead of a score are not included. Some House and Senate members, noted with an asterisk next to their name, only voted on 50-75% of the weighted votes used for the scorecard. Please exercise caution when comparing their scores to other members.[4] |
” |
Political activity
2018
Club for Growth endorsed four Texas candidates in open seats that went to a runoff: Bunni Pounds for the 5th district, Ron Wright for the 6th District, Chip Roy for the 21st District, and Michael Cloud for the 27th District. All but Pounds were successful.
The Washington Examiner’s David M. Drucker said that while the Club for Growth was “often at odds with the Republican establishment in Washington,” the group modified its approach in the primaries to avoid weakening the GOP in advance of the November elections.
“Rather than targeting incumbents,” Drucker wrote, “the group is focusing its attention on nominating preferred candidates in nine open seats.”
2017
Ad buy targeting moderate Republicans
In April 2017, CFG announced it would begin a $1 million ad campaign targeting moderate Republicans who do not support the more recent proposals to amend the American Health Care Act. According to The Washington Post, the organization aimed to convince "more moderate — or less stridently conservative — Republicans to swallow a proposal favored by the House Freedom Caucus that would allow states to seek waivers of several Affordable Care Act insurance mandates." The ad buy's first targeted legislators were Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Chris Collins (R-N.Y.).[13]
2016
Presidential endorsement
In the 2016 election cycle, Club for Growth PAC endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in the organization's history. On March 23, 2016, the organization endorsed Ted Cruz for president. Club for Growth President David McIntosh stated, "Ted Cruz is the best free-market, pro-growth, limited-government candidate in the presidential race." Regarding the first-time move of endorsing a presidential candidate, McIntosh said, "This year is different, because there is a vast gulf between the two leading Republican candidates on matters of economic liberty. Their records make clear that Ted Cruz is a consistent conservative who will fight to shrink the federal footprint, while Donald Trump would seek to remake government in his desired image."[14]
Congressional endorsements
The Club for Growth PAC endorsed the following 2016 candidates:[15]
Mary Thomas (R-Florida): U.S. House, Florida District 2 - Lost in primary- Marlin Stutzman (R-Indiana): U.S. Senate - Lost in primary
- Kyle McCarter (R-Illinois): U.S. House, Illinois District 15 - Lost in primary
- Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas): U.S. House, Kansas District 1 - Lost in primary
- Mike Crane (R-Georgia): U.S. House, Georgia District 3 - Lost in runoff primary
Warren Davidson (R-Ohio): U.S. House, Ohio District 8- Jim Banks (R-Indiana): U.S. House, Indiana District 3 - Won special election and general election
- Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania.): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- Mike Lee (R-Utah): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- Tim Scott (R-South Carolina): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- Rand Paul (R-Kentucky): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- Marco Rubio (R-Florida): U.S. Senate - Won in general
- John Fleming (R-Louisiana): U.S. Senate - Lost in jungle primary
- Ron DeSantis (R-Florida): U.S. House, Florida District 6 - Won in general
- Ted Budd (R-North Carolina): U.S. House, North Carolina District 6 - Won in general
- Rod Blum (R-Iowa): U.S. House, Iowa District 1 - Won in general
- Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey): U.S. House, New Jersey District 5 - Lost in general
- Andy Biggs (R-Arizona): U.S. House, Arizona District 5 - Won in general
- Paul Gosar (R-Arizona): U.S. House, Arizona District 4 - Won in general
- Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana): U.S. House, Louisiana District 4 - Won in general
2014
The Club for Growth urged Republicans to wage a campaign to shut down the government unless President Obama agreed to defund his healthcare initiative. Former CFG President Chris Chocola said, "Every Republican ran on defunding or repealing Obamacare. This is a test of whether they’re actually going to do what they say they’re for. What’s the more radical thing to do: Continue to spend more and borrow more from China? Or have the confrontation? It’s never going to get any easier."[16]
Endorsed candidates
The Club for Growth endorsed challenger Bryan Smith (Idaho-02) in the Republican primary over incumbent Mike Simpson.[17] Smith was defeated in the primary.
The Club had also endorsed Rep. Tom Cotton (R) in his U.S. Senate bid in Arkansas, challenging Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor. The group referred to Cotton as a "taxpayer hero and a fighter against the Obama agenda."[18] Cotton won in the general election.
2012
Endorsed candidates
The CFG endorsed a number of candidates in the 2012 elections. The candidates listed below are those that the organization supported.[19]
- Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): U.S. Senate
- Mark Neumann (R-Wis.): U.S. Senate
- Ted Cruz (R-Texas): U.S. Senate
- Richard Mourdock (R-Ind.): U.S. Senate
- Josh Mandel (R-Ohio): U.S. Senate
- Tom Cotton (R-Ark.): U.S. House, Arkansas District 4
- Steve King (R-Iowa): U.S. House, Iowa District 4
- Scott Keadle (R-N.C.): U.S. House, North Carolina District 8
- Ron Gould (R-Ariz): U.S. House, Arizona District 4
Targeted candidates
The Club for Growth opposed the following candidates in the 2012 elections:[20]
- Wil Cardon (R-Ariz.): U.S. Senate
- Richard Lugar (R-Ind.): U.S. Senate
Expenditures
In the 2012 elections the Club for Growth spent a grand total of $660,220: $212,284 for Republicans and $447,936 against Republicans.[20]
| Top 5 largest Club for Growth expenditures in 2012[20] | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Party | State | Office | Total | For | Against | Desired Result |
| Wil Cardon |  |
Ariz. | Senate | $332,971 | $0 | $332,971 |  |
| Richard Lugar | |
Ind. | Senate | $114,965 | $0 | $114,965 | |
| Jeff Flake | |
Ariz. | Senate | $83,242 | $83,242 | $0 | |
| Richard Mourdock | |
Ind. | Senate | $79,890 | $79,890 | $0 |  |
| Scott Keadle | |
N.C. | House | $49,152 | $49,152 | $0 | |
2012 campaign ads
| 2012 Campaign Ads | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| |||
|
|
Leadership
As of May 2017, David McIntosh was the president of the Club for Growth.[21]
The following individuals were members of the board of directors as of March 2016:[22]
- Jackson T. Stephens Jr., Chairman
- Ken Blackwell
- Chris Chocola
- Terry Considine
- Jerry Hayden
- Frayda Levin
- Howie Rich
- David McIntosh
Finances
In 2003 and 2006, according to Open Secrets, CFG spent $60,000 on lobbying.[23]
The following is a breakdown of the CFG's revenue from contributions and grants received, total revenue and expenses for the 2010-2014 fiscal years, as reported to the IRS. (Note: CFG's fiscal year is July to June.)
| Contributions and grants received, total revenue and expenses for the CFG, 2010-2014 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax Year | Contributions and grants received | Total annual revenue | Expenses |
| 2013/2014[3] | $6,777,161 | $7,047,161 | $4,701,592 |
| 2012/2013[24] | $3,685,928 | $3,890,928 | $5,625,314 |
| 2011/2012[25] | $5,073,976 | $5,074,152 | $5,229,103 |
| 2010/2011[25] | $5,038,581 | $5,038,761 | $4,489,753 |
Tax status
Club for Growth is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Its 501(c) status refers to a section of the U.S. federal income tax code concerning social welfare organizations.[26] Organizations that have been granted 501(c)(4) status by the Internal Revenue Service are exempt from federal income tax.[27] Section 501(c) of the U.S. tax code has 29 sections listing specific conditions particular organizations must meet in order to be considered tax-exempt under the section. Unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, however, donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are not tax-deductible for the individual or corporation making the contribution. 501(c)(4) organizations may engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities. This includes donations to political committees that support or oppose ballot measures, bond issues, recalls, or referenda.
- See also: 501(c)(4) organizations on Ballotpedia
Noteworthy events
John Doe investigations
Two John Doe investigations, beginning in 2010 and ending in 2015, were launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D) into the activities of staff and associates of Gov. Scott Walker (R).[28] The Club for Growth was one of 29 conservative organizations that were targeted during the course of the second of two John Doe investigations in Wisconsin related to Gov. Scott Walker (R).[29][30]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'Club for Growth'. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- David McIntosh
- Club for Growth PAC
- Club for Growth Action
- John Doe investigations related to Scott Walker
External links
- Club for Growth
- Club for Growth Facebook page
- Club for Growth Twitter feed
- Club for Growth YouTube channel
Footnotes
- ↑ Club for Growth, "Club for Growth," accessed February 5, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Open Secrets, "Club for Growth," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Guidestar, "CFG, IRS Form 990 (2013/2014)," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 CFG, "Budget + Spending," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 CFG, "Education," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 CFG, "Entitlements," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 CFG, "Regulation," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 CFG, "Taxes," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ CFG, "Tort reform," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ CFG, "Congressional Scorecards," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 CFG, "Scorecard Methodology," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Club for Growth aims to muscle House moderates into accepting Freedom Caucus health proposal," April 10, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Club for Growth endorses Ted Cruz," March 23, 2016
- ↑ CFG, "Club PAC-Endorsed Candidates," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Club for Growth takes aim at Obamacare as it continues to take on GOP from the right," September 14, 2013
- ↑ Club for Growth, "Bryan Smith (ID-02)," accessed July 18, 2013
- ↑ Washington Post, "Cotton grabs Club for Growth endorsement, SCF ‘open’ to backing him," August 7, 2013
- ↑ Open Secrets, "Club for Growth PAC Recipients, 2012," accessed July 18, 2013
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Open Secrets, "Club for Growth Recipients, 2012," accessed July 18, 2013
- ↑ CFG, "Staff," accessed May 19, 2017
- ↑ CFG, "Board of Directors," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ Open Secrets, "Club for Growth," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ Guidestar, "CFG, IRS Form 990 (2012/2013)," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Guidestar, "CFG, IRS Form 990 (2011/2012)," accessed March 24, 2016
- ↑ Internal Revenue Service, "IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations," accessed July 10, 2014
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "Eric O’Keefe, and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc.," accessed February 23, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin Watchdog, "Wall Street Journal: GAB targeted conservative justices in John Doe defense," September 17, 2015
- ↑ Eric O'Keefe v. Francis Schmitz, et al., "Complaint," accessed September 16, 2015
| |||||||
