WASHINGTON — First it was Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul who helped finance Newt Gingrich’s presidential ambitions. Then it was Foster Friess, a multimillionaire with the propensity for off-color jokes who threw his money behind Rick Santorum.

The latest wealthy businessman to grab headlines in this year’s presidential contest is someone less splashy, who made a splash on Thursday nonetheless: Joe Ricketts, the low-key founder of Omaha-based TD Ameritrade, emerged in connection with a plan to blitz the airwaves with provocative attacks on President Barack Obama.

A billionaire philanthropist with a particular interest in opposing earmarks, Ricketts had previously played a bit part on the political scene. But he took an unflattering turn in the spotlight Thursday with a New York Times article that said a report he commissioned detailed how his super PAC, Ending Spending, could put $10 million toward an ad campaign about Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., his controversial former pastor.

Ricketts and his family, which owns the Chicago Cubs and includes in its ranks a high-profile Obama fundraiser, moved quickly Thursday to disavow the racially charged idea.

“Not only was this plan merely a proposal — one of several submitted to the Ending Spending Action Fund by third-party vendors — but it reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects, and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take,” Brian Baker, president of the fund, said in a statement.

The dust-up highlights a danger for presidential campaigns in the era of super PACs, which have made it easier for wealthy individuals and corporations to spend freely on campaigns. Although the candidates may reap the benefits of that spending, they also face the risk that the groups or their donors will go rogue, pursuing lines of attack that reflect on them negatively.

Romney was forced repeatedly Thursday to comment on the proposal — overseen by GOP ad man Fred Davis — which derided Obama as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”

“I want to make it very clear: I repudiate that effort,” Romney told reporters in Florida. “I think it’s the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign. I hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the future and about issues and about vision for America.”

Liberals seized on the incident, with the group Americans United calling for a boycott of Ameritrade “until they publicly call on Ricketts to shut down his hate-spewing super PAC.”

The incident highlighted the relatively private Ricketts, 70, who has recently increased his participation in conservative politics and is poised to play a significant role in the 2012 election.

Ricketts has an unusual profile for a rising political player, with little in his resume to suggest that he favors controversial or attention-getting tactics.

A former Democrat who became a Republican, he later renounced all party affiliation to become an independent. His daughter, Laura, is a lesbian activist and prominent bundler for Obama; she raised about half a million dollars for the president.

“We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views,” Laura Ricketts said in a statement Thursday. “Above all we love and respect each other.”

Ricketts’ children have roles with the Cubs, which are seeking help from Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) to renovate the team’s 98-year-old stadium, Wrigley Field. Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff, is “livid” with the Ricketts family, an aide to the mayor said.

According to a 2006 Omaha World-Herald profile of one son, Pete Ricketts, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate, Joe Ricketts wouldn’t allow any of his children to work for Ameritrade before their 30th birthday, wanting them to expand their horizons before returning to the family business.

The family’s net worth has been ranked as high as 93rd on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. In 2009, Joe Ricketts ranked 371st, with assets estimated at $1 billion.

According to friends, Ricketts has rarely sought the spotlight or spoken publicly. He left the Ameritrade board of directors in February but gave little indication that he intended to become more involved in politics.

“I don’t think he seeks to be the public face of anything like that, but I would say the things that he believes in, he’s very passionate about,” said Robert Slezak, a former Ameritrade executive who worked with Ricketts for a decade. “I think he would prefer to deflect the spotlight on someone else.”

Yet Ricketts has been an emerging financial force in politics in recent years, initially by starting an anti-earmark campaign called Taxpayers Against Earmarks. He donated $1.1 million to Ending Spending ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, with the bulk spent opposing Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev.

This month, Ricketts helped guide Nebraska state Sen. Deb Fischer to an upset victory in the GOP Senate primary with a late $250,000 infusion. Ending Spending also is supporting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) in his recall election next month.

And Ricketts is a top donor this year to the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a group that has targeted long-time incumbents regardless of their party affiliation or politics.

“He has a lot of different interests, and he’s at a point in his life where he can spend his time and money on things that interest him and are important to him, and that includes the political world around him,” said Mark Quandahl, a friend and former chairman of the Nebraska Republican Party.

Ricketts owns a successful new New York news Web site, DNAinfo.com; a natural bison meat producer; and the upstart American Film Company, which produced the 2010 Robert Redford movie “The Conspirator,” a historical documentary about the legal aftermath of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.

Staff writers T.W. Farnam, Dan Balz, Dan Eggen and Nia-Malika Henderson contributed to this report. Henderson reported from Jacksonville, Fla.

Join the Conversation

53 Comments

  1. Ah yes, more corporate hijacking of democracy thanks to the corrupt corporate-owned Republicans who are bought and paid for by the corrupt corporate right wing.  Just sickening.
    The GOP motto: “IN CORRUPT CORPORATIONS OUT TO DESTROY THE MIDDLE CLASS WE TRUST.”

      1. Yes I have heard of him.  Is the implication that he is corrupt, or has something to do with political attack ads?

      2. Conservatives always bring up George Soros when a rich Republican is highlighted. 

        We have several news articles about billionaire Republican’s trying to buy elections and conservative’s have only one to counter with.

      3. Soros doesn’t hire the kind of scum that would dream up such a racist and divisive tactic. GOP sewage is an appropriate tag.

    1. Ah yes those evil money grubbing republicans…have you taken a look at the budget that President Obama put forth to Congress?  Have you taken a look at what the Democrats have proposed for a budget?  

      1. How do you become an apologist for the top 1%?  Where do you go to get training so that you can be the most effective synchophant. You know, so that you can spout absolute nonsense with no cognitive dissonance. When you graduate from the training do you get a certificate signifying your total cluelessness?  Because that’s the way you look based on your posts. Were you asleep from 2000 to 2008 when your heroes tanked the economy hurting millions of people, started a war based on a pack of lies, and implemented a huge stain on our Country’s reputation by torturing people. And this is something that you’d like to return to, huh?

        1. Ah yes there must have ONLY been republicans in power LOL!  Get a clue!  They are all corrupt and only looking out for themselves!  I never said I was a republican LOL!

           

  2. I can’t stand the Court’s decision that a corporation is a person nor the resulting PACS, but at least this one rejected the 3rd party private vendor suggestion.
    Having said that, I still don’t believe Obama’s relationship with Wright has been fully explained……..

  3. Guilt by association worked well for Joe McCarthy.  If you assume that a churchgoer shares all of the same views as his priest or pastor, as this Wright/Obama premise seems to suggest, then for example there must be an awful lot of ped0philes out there.

  4. Republicans have been practicing gutter politics. Now they are practicing sewage politics.

    1. And of course the Democrats are perfect little angels when it comes to
      politics.  LOL!

        1. The reality is that there aren’t many sitting in DC today that are truly looking out for their constituents!  They are up there in their little ivory tower continuing to look worse than two five year olds on a playground.  Every 4 years the American people are subjected to the various special interest group’s attack ads.  The point is neither republicans nor democrats can say they are clean!   Until the American people unite to put a stop to the stupidity, we all will continue to have our freedoms and our paychecks erode!

          1. That’s not what I asked. Find an example of a comparable attack ad coming from a Democratic/liberal group and we’ll talk. Otherwise, here it is certainly the far right that is dragging us to the gutter.

          2. I said a comparable attack ad, not an attack ad from a Super PAC. Something in the vein of finding an “extremely literate” black man to shield from claims of racism or attempts to make America “hate” a candidate, etc.

          3. The article above indicates that this is a Super PAC that has been financed in part by Mr. Ricketts.   Thus the articles above would be pertinent to the discussion.

          4. Your above comment refers to Democrats not being angels when in comes to politics. So pointing out the obvious fact that there will be/are liberal/Democratic backed super PACs doesn’t prove your point. There is just nothing out there comparable to the kinds of ads the far right super PACs are proposing/putting out

          5. I would be more than happy to pull out the last presidential elections ads as examples.  The Democrats have not had to fight amongst themselves to nominate someone so now “silly” season starts and we will all be subjected to attack ads from both sides of the aisle.  My point is that both sides are way over the top when it comes to attack ads during a presidential campaign.  To say that one side is more vile than another simply isn’t true. An interesting article… http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2010/10/26/negativity-update/

          6. Still waiting for a comparable example though.

            Sure both sides use attack ads, but that doesn’t automatically mean the ads are equal in their dirtiness. I’m personally unaware of ads from the left that seek to inspire hatred and also explicitly seek a shield to protect against claims of racism. I don’t think the left has yet stooped to that level.

          7. I guess I must be pretty stupid.  I don’t see how an ad that shows the former association of President Obama to Rev. Wright is showing racism.  As I recall the person that was spewing racist propaganda in that relationship was Rev. Wright.  Please explain (not being sarcastic) how you feel that this shows racism.   My whole original intent in addressing the original comment was to point out that neither side can claim to be the wronged party.  They both are guilty of negative ad campaigning. 

          8. If you were a Democrat, you’d be smart and virtuous enough to see it.  Since you can’t see it, you must be a Republican.

          9. Guess your powers of deduction are slightly askew because I am neither a republican nor am I a democrat!  I was smart enough to obtain a college degree (and pay for it myself) and also smart enough to see that both major political parties are guilty of negative campaigning.  To be honest I would rather do the research on my own than watch a bunch of idiots parade garbage across a tv screen trying to antagonize me into changing the way I vote.  

          10. So why are you commenting if you ignorant of the ad proposal? It specifically outlines the need for an “extremely literate” African American in order to shield from claims of racism. That isn’t my interpretating or my imagination, that’s what’s in the outline itself.

          11. I don’t see where this article outlines that which you’ve indicated.  I’ve gone to the referenced article in the New York Times and still don’t see the “extremely literate” African American that you’ve indicated was needed.  As a matter of fact all I see is the indication in both articles that they were trying to tie Obama back to Rev. Wright.  Please show me the error of my ignorant ways.  I would like to be able to comment knowledgeably.

          12. The very objective of the Republican Party, of benefiting the people at the top of the economic ladder at the great expense of everyone else, is vile to begin with since it’s patently unfair. Everything they do from that point only serves to reinforce the vile objective and reason for being.  The top 1% have rigged the entire system in their favor, by purchasing Congress, so that none of the will of the people gets accomplished. Ever wonder why the public will favor something by a huge majority and yet Congress will do nothing? Our system is broken, but it hasn’t been broken by Democrats but by the 1% and their foot soldiers the Republican party. Open your eyes and start moving past the propaganda, both sides are not equally culpable for the sorry condition of our national discourse. Rupert Murdoch is exhibit one…

          13. And you had me all the way up until you said that only the Republicans were to blame.  The Democrats have had a majority control under a Democratic President and I just honestly didn’t see much difference in what actually was accomplished.  The only way to “fix” it is to hold ALL of them accountable, reform the way people/companies are allowed to contribute to campaigns, etc etc but it will never happen.  The reason?  Because the members of Congress make way too much money doing what they do…on both sides!  I still stand by my point that both sides are equally to blame for the condition this country is in. But thank you for your opinion.

          1. Whether you like it or not, a persons character is judged by their actions, not what they say. The same can be said for a political party;  its character  is judged on its actions, not on what it says.  So if you don’t want to be associated with maladapted people that are willing to make the rest of us live in financial peril so they can live even higher on the hog, then don’t hang around with Republicans. Remember, watch what they do, not what they say. There rhetoric sometimes appears reasonable, but their actions and policies are all designed to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. Why people would support that agenda is beyond me.

          2. “. . . a persons character is judged by their actions, not what they say.”  Wow, what a neat idea.  Maybe I should write it down so I won’t forget it.  Does it mean that if a Republican’s actions are good, but he says bad things, that we should disregard what he says and hang around with him because he’s a good person?

          3. Republicans actions rarely turn out good for the average person so you won’t have to face that dilemma. Any other questions?

          4. Please define the average person for me.  Can you tell me what either party has done that has been worth a darn to the average person?  

          5. Although you need to do your own investigation let’s start with Social Security, which has allowed millions of elderly to live out their sunset years with some semblance of financial security and dignity. You can thank Democrats as Republicans fought SS all theway. You can also thank Democrats for the 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, and paid vacations. All Republicans have done is try to further concentrate the wealth of the nation at the very top by developing policies that benefit the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. They seem to worship and prostrate themselves before the wealthy and powerful. It’s obvious if you cut through all the misleading propaganda and dig for the truth. Why anyone other than a millionaire would support their skewed agenda is hard to explain.

          6. Thanks for the explanation.  I guess many of those I have come to take for granted…guess my age is showing.  LOL!  Trust me I’m FAR from being a millionaire but I guess I can dream big right?

          7. Yes.  What if the Republican’s actions are good for the average person and he says good things, too, should we hang around with him?  Don’t those things make him a good person?

          8. If said person is all of the above then he wouldn’t be a Republican in the first place

          9. Making a concious decision to support an ideology that is so totally obsessed with political power, such that the welfare of the country and the economic security of its people, seems to be expendable whenever a Democrat is a President, kind of defines a person in unfavorable terms, yeah… this isn’t a game where you get to pick a team to root for with no consequences. Because one team in this case  is not worthy of people rooting for them.  Republicans should just be honest and tell everyone that their one mission in life is to protect the rich and screw everyone else.  And your party’s focus on social issues when the only thing we should be talking about is how to create jobs and get the economy going,  is a real indication of how they feel about the average Americans current plight….in two words, don’t care. So yeah if your dense enough to support this corrupt ideology then you’re not worth hanging with anyway.

          10. Responding the way I did is not an action nor does it indicate any political affiliation.  Opinions are like behinds…everyone has one.

          11. You just can’t have a conversation with some people.   They automatically go to name calling!  LOL!

          12. I’m sorry, totallyoverit, for calling you very bad.  It’s just that I got caught up in this Republican – Democrat thing and couldn’t control myself.

          13. LOL!  Seems many couldn’t.  Wish people could keep politics in perspective.  All I’m looking for is civil discourse…explain your position without calling people names.  That’s how people can get a different perspective on a topic.  Many of us consider ourselves one or the other of the political parties.  Me?  Well I’m not conservative enough to be a republican but I’m not liberal enough to be a democrat.  Nobody wants me :)

        1. Actually, I just because I posted that doesn’t make me a republican nor does this post make me a democrat.  In not one post on here can you properly ascertain what political party I am affiliated with.  You assumed it.  And we all know what assuming does.  The point is one party trying to make a huge point about the other…they both provide hours of attack ads during “silly” season.   Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!

  5. What a disgusting a dirty tactic. Make America hate Obama and make sure there is a “literate” black mouthpiece so to shield them from claims of racism. Just awful.

  6. “Liberals seized on the issue, with the group Americans United calling for a boycott of Ameritrade ‘until they publicly call on Ricketts to shut down his hate-spewing super PAC.’  ”

    Sure, that’ll show ’em, those naughty capitalists.

  7. Politicians are theonly people in the world who create problems and then campaign againstthem.Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicansare against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?Have you ever wondered, ifall the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we haveinflation and high taxes?You and I don’t propose a federal budget. ThePresident does…. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote
    on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
    You and I don’t
    write the tax code, Congress does.
    You and I don’t set fiscal policy,
    Congress does.
    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal
    Reserve Bank does.
    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President,
    and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300
    million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the
    domestic problems that plague this country.
    I excluded the members of the
    Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913,
    Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a
    federally chartered, but private, central bank.
    I excluded all the
    special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal
    authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a
    President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a
    politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or
    reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s
    responsibility to determine how he votes.
    Those 545 human beings spend
    much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They
    cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
    What separates a
    politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal
    human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the
    President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He
    cannot force the Congress to accept it.
    The Constitution, which is the
    supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of
    Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is
    the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party.
    He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they
    want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree
    to.
    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot
    replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence
    and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not
    traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth
    that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must
    follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
    If the tax code is
    unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
    If the budget is in the red,
    it’s because they want it in the red.
    If the Army & Marines are in
    Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement
    plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that
    way.
    There are no insoluble government problems.
    Do not let these
    545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they
    can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to
    regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take
    this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists
    disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that
    prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
    Those 545 people,
    and they alone, are responsible.
    They, and they alone, have the
    power.
    They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who
    are their bosses.
    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their
    own employees…
    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up
    their mess!See More

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *