The boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled “Montana $ Bomb.”

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates’ strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal “coordination” between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns,” said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado.

The boxes were examined by Frontline and ProPublica as part of an investigation into the growing influence on elections of dark money groups, tax-exempt organizations that can accept unlimited contributions and do not have to identify their donors. The documents offer a rare glimpse into the world of dark money, showing how Western Tradition Partnership appealed to donors, interacted with candidates and helped shape their election efforts.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines the term "social welfare" as "any
service or activity designed to promote the welfare of the community and the
individual, as through counseling services, health clinics, recreation halls and
playgrounds ..." This definition is in alignment with the broad concept of "social
welfare" as provided in section 1.501(c)(4)-(a)(2)(i) of the Income Tax
Regulations. Additionally, the court in Commissioner v. Lake Forest, Inc., stated
that "In short, 'social welfare' is the well-being of persons as a community."
The terms "civic organization" and "social welfare" appear to be defined by
authorities in terms of "community", an equally evasive concept which will be
discussed at length later in this article in the context of Homeowners' Associations.
Because "social welfare" is a vague and elusive term, it has been broadly
interpreted by the courts and the Service.
Organizations exempt under section 501(c)(4) are generally described in one
of the following categories:
1. Nonprofit organizations that traditionally have been labeled
in common parlance as social welfare organizations;
2. Organizations that may be performing some type of public
or community benefit but whose principal feature is lack of
any private benefit or profit;
3. Organizations that would qualify for exemption under
section 501(c)(3) but for a defect in their organizational
instruments or if they were not "action organizations."

On the very day in 2008 that the American Future Fund mailed its application to the IRS, checking the box for "no" on whether it planned to participate in politics, it uploaded an ad to YouTube praising a Republican senator. The group reported more than $8 million in political spending in 2010.

One group, the Center for Individual Freedom, told election officials that it spent $2.5 million on ads in 2010, when it paid for commercials criticizing Democrats in 10 districts. But it reported to the IRS that it spent nothing to directly or indirectly influence elections, calling those same ads "education" or "legislative activities."

For example, almost 70 percent of America's Families First's 2010 expenditures went to grants to five social welfare nonprofits. Four spent money on ads supporting Democrats or criticizing Republicans, including one group that put almost half of its expenditures into political ads.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, though formed in 1985, in many ways epitomizes the new breed of political-minded social welfare nonprofits.

The group's initial IRS application said it would not engage in politics, yet its 2010 tax return says it gave almost $3.8 million to other groups for political activities.

Separately, the Republican Jewish Coalition told the FEC it spent more than $1.1 million on political ads, money that wasn't reported to the IRS. Together, the grants and the political advertising made up almost 40 percent of the total expenditures of the group, which is chaired by GOP super donor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN???
Why would there be a confusion over what is going on? Do you think that they are mistaking what they mean? Do you think that this "political madness" has something to do with you? This is actually false. What we are watching, debating, discussing is one time every 4 years we are asked to decide, and partake in a boardroom meeting, that is usually (for the rest of the 4 years until we get involved again), held behind closed doors.