• Big-bucks donations to super PACs keep the GOP race going
    10 replies, posted
[Img]http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2012/03/21/Mega-donors-keeping-the-GOP-race-going-UM169ATO-x-extralarge.jpg[/img] [Quote]More than two-thirds of the money to super PACs aligned with presidential candidates came from mega-donors who each contributed $500,000 or more, demonstrating how a handful of wealthy interests have helped turn the GOP presidential primary into the longest-running nomination fight in a generation. No group relied more heavily on a few super donors than the political committee backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich: 96% of contributions to the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future came from this elite group, a USA TODAY analysis shows. More than $16 million flowed from a single source: Las Vegas casino titan Sheldon Adelson and his relatives. Restore Our Future, a super PAC aiding former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, relied on nearly 52% of its contributions from corporations or individuals who gave $500,000 or more, the lowest share of super donors among the candidate-aligned super PACs analyzed by USA TODAY. The analysis examined four Republican super PACs and Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC aiding President Obama's re-election. In total, 43 contributors funneled nearly $52.3 million into these five super PACs since the start of 2011. Super PAC money "has extended the nomination contest," said Richard Hasen, a campaign-finance expert at the University of California-Irvine. However, he said, the spending may not have changed the outcome predicted by many political observers — that Romney is the GOP's likely nominee, following his resounding Illinois victory Tuesday. "The super PAC money does the same thing it does for a candidate who's independently wealthy," Hasen said. "It gives the candidate extra chances to make the case to the public. But it doesn't guarantee success." The super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts, have proved crucial to the Republican candidates with dwindling resources. Last month, Winning Our Future outraised Gingrich by 2-to-1 and spent twice as much as he did. Winning Our Future's independent expenditures — $24.8 million so far this year— allow the Gingrich campaign to spend its money on basic expenses such as staff salaries and travel. Since the beginning of the year, just 8% of Gingrich campaign spending has gone directly to advertising. Romney's wins have proved expensive. In February, he spent $12.4 million - more than all his Republican rivals combined. However, Restore Our Future also spent nearly as much that month, the lion's share of it on ads, direct mail and automated calls, targeting Gingrich and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. More than 71% of money to a pro-Santorum super PAC came from super donors, while a single donor, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, donated 70.7% of the money to Endorse Liberty, which has advanced the presidential campaign of Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul. Some donors are hedging their bets. Last month, Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons gave $100,000 each to Winning Our Future and Restore Our Future. His wife, Annette, donated $1 million to the pro-Santorum group on Feb. 15. While Obama touts his campaign's reliance on donors who give in small amounts, more than $3 out of every $4 to a super PAC aiding his re-election came from groups or individuals who contributed $500,000 or more. New super donors in February to the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action included comedian Bill Maher, who gave $1 million, and Kareem Ahmed, the CEO of a California medical billings and collection company. He donated $500,000.[/quote] [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-21/super-donors-GOP-race/53686982/1[/url] The comments are funny
Who cares about voters as long as the corporations give us $$$ Big Bucks $$$
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540797_389664451061802_196601040368145_1458232_237627076_n.jpg[/IMG]
Might as well throw that money into a fire.
Super-PACs are retarded, especially at this moment in time when the GOP candidate isn't even chosen (even though Romney is going to be the candidate.) Even then so much money will be wasted. Republicans should just focus on getting a Republican into office.
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/v136.png[/img] lmao [sub][SUP](although the bottom three are pmuch evenly matched)[/SUP][/sub]
Wow, Romney had the lowest percentage of Super Donors? That's unexpected, given his reputation as being the candidate of the wealthy.
As I recall, the biggest panic-reaction to Citizen's United was to claim our elections would end up being deluged in money provided by an elite few who can effectively buy the election and drown out the regular people. The sensationalists are right, that's exactly what is happening. A few ultra-wealthy people are dumping unlimited money into their favorite candidates and, in Romney's case, completely burying their opponents in shitty negative ads.
Super-PACs are wrong no matter who's using them.
Its actually mind numbing when you look and see how much money is flowing though these campaigns, who is donating, and how much each candidate has in assets. It's pretty sickening to think at the same time most of these people have a piece of a certain industry in their pocket so most of their political stuff will benefit that as well.
[QUOTE=MBB;35240330]Wow, Romney had the lowest percentage of Super Donors? That's unexpected, given his reputation as being the candidate of the wealthy.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of multiple donations of 50,000 to 100,000 dollars. The $500,000 cutoff point seems a bit high.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.