Changes

AJS has long been ahead of the trends for dark money political spending. "You could say Americans for Job Security has been keeping donors anonymous since before it was cool," Talking Points Memo wrote in December 2012.<ref name="TPM">Eric Lach, [http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/americans_for_job_security_california.php/ "The Dark Money Forerunner of Secret California Millions"], ''Talking Points Memo'', December 3, 2012</ref>

Later in a FEC Complaint, [[Public Citizen]] wrote that AJS is a "sham [[front group]] that would be better called Corporations Influencing Elections ... masquerading as a non-profit to conceal its funders and the scope of its [[electioneering communications|electioneering activities]],"<ref>[http://www.citizen.org/documents/AJS%20Evidentiary%20File.pdf Evidentiary file for Americans for Job Security electioneering,] Center for Responsive Politics, April 2007. 41-page pdf.</ref> the [[Center for Responsive Politics]] wrote in April 2007.<ref>[http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/special_interest/articles.cfm?ID=16408 "Stop AJS. Non-Profit Front Group Violates Tax Status, Electioneering Laws,"] Center for Responsive Politics/''Public Citizen'', April 2007.</ref> Incorporated October 1997 in Virginia, AJS was described by the Center as "pro-Republican", "pro-business", and "established to directly counter labor's influence".<ref name="open">[http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=24 "Americans for Job Security, 2004 Election Cycle]", ''Open Secrets.org'', undated, accessed October 2007.</ref><ref>In March 2004, AJS was described as "[[neoconservative]]/far [[right wing]] in ''The Texas Observer''. See Jake Berstein, [http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=1590 "Meet the Attack Dogs. The Virginia-based Americans for Job Security loves to get involved in Texas politics,"] ''The Texas Observer'', March 12, 2004.</ref> In 2008, the Federal Elections Commission found "reason to believe" AJS had violated election law but not registering as a political committee-- which would have required more disclosure-- but the FEC's Republican commissioners blocked any action against the group.<ref name="MIKE"></ref>