Super Pac

[Lovely Lane]

Geez, I hadn't known of the value of super pac's until I saw one guy, casino mogul, give millions $$ to Gingrich campaign, plus millions $$ on TV time in Florida in a weeks time.

I suppose it is only fair and square when I remember that our conservative Supreme Court paved the way in ruling that a corporation is a person.

So, these very wealthy, powerful, influential persons can pour millions into their candidates campaign fund plus also, I understand, pay for all the TV time they wish to purchase.

Well, this means I am not giving my $25 dollar contribution this year, that's for sure. Honestly, I have been looking into the idea of starting my own super-pac, heck, Steven Colbert has one.


SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
Super PACs | OpenSecrets

“The court affirmed,” Mr. Hoersting said in a statement, “that groups of passionate individuals, like billionaires — and corporations and unions after Citizens United — have the right to spend without limit to independently advocate for or against federal candidates.” Federal Courts Rule In Campaign Finance Cases - NYTimes.com

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thought we went over this subject already. Anyway, for the record ...

Let's look at the other candidates then and see if there is some sort of pattern to be seen. Here's what the candidates reported as of September 30: Banking on Becoming President | OpenSecrets

Candidate Total Raised Q3 Raised Spent Debts Cash on Hand % From Small Indivs
Barack Obama (D) $86,215,580 $40,827,453 $27,115,268 $1,709,300 $61,403,711 48%
Romney Mitt Romney (R) $32,212,389 $13,928,166 $17,559,845 $0 $14,656,966 10%
Perry Rick Perry (R) $17,168,589 $17,168,589 $2,090,174 $339,120 $15,078,415 4%
Paul Ron Paul (R) $12,623,422 $8,109,256 $8,948,654 $0 $3,674,768 48%
Bachmann Michele Bachmann (R) $7,546,040 $3,906,317 $6,206,856 $549,604 $1,339,184 52%
Cain Herman Cain (R) $5,340,967 $2,779,802 $4,007,188 $675,000 $1,333,779 50%
Pawlenty Tim Pawlenty (R) $4,700,636 $226,963 $4,680,463 $453,842 $20,173 12%
Huntsman Jon Huntsman (R) $4,490,614 $4,490,614 $4,162,999 $3,145,594 $327,615 4%
Gingrich Newt Gingrich (R) $2,897,954 $803,087 $2,544,537 $1,192,866 $353,417 43%
Santorum Rick Santorum (R) $1,286,975 $701,699 $1,097,418 $71,866 $189,557 21%

The "big money" candidates earlier in the campaign were clearly Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, in comparison, were running on a shoestring.


Looks like Mitt Romney is the guy we need to watch out for, Maren. Only 10% of his contributions came from small donors. Mitt's only slightly better off than Rick Perry, who had only 4% from small donors.

Ron Paul, famous for money bombs, had 48% from small donors. Newt had 43% from small donors. The data tells a lot about the candidates, Maren. Newt came into this race without "big money" backing ... and, near as I can tell, he still doesn't have it ... that's likely why the one donation to his SuperPAC made news.

Mitt Romney has a large net worth. Newt's net worth is small in comparison ... not much different from Ron Paul's apparently, though it's greater than Rick Santorum's.

Yet, the data indicates that Romney had only a few "small" donors. Gingrich had many "small" donors. To be honest, I'm not sure I really trust either Romney or Gingrich ...

For comparison, it would be interesting to know what the donations into Romney's SuperPAC have been.

If reports are to be believed, Romney's SuperPAC has greatly outspent Newt's SuperPAC. Yet, Newt has more support currently. Weird. Explain that one to me, Lovely Lane. Romney spends vastly more money to secure the election, yet Newt leads in all the polls. Why is that, Lovely Lane?

 

[Lovely Lane]

I have no idea Nighthawkeye, what are the answers Nighthawkeye?
I'm not really interested of Newt's monies, I do care of the thinking and action of the conservative Supreme Court, the federal courts who heard the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission case, and what if any, grass-root organizations moving to fight this atrocity.

Yes, I believe that the so-called conservative Supreme Court began this mass influx of mega-monies from mega-entities. Why Nighthawkeye would they have ruled like this?

Do all conservatives feel this is the best way to fund political coffers and candidates? Being a Democrat, I don't like it at all. And I bet the Obama campaign has been receiving plenty of money through this process too.

 

[stamperben]

The rise of the super pacs is disgusting.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I have no idea Nighthawkeye, what are the answers Nighthawkeye?

LOL ... Admittedly, tough questions, but at the heart of the issue, Lovely Lane.

The American people - the voters - have to fix this. The politicians will not ... cannot.
The American people have to demand accountability of their politicians ... and, more importantly, need to be accountable for their own lives. Our governmental system is overspent. That will stop, and it will stop sooner rather than later. It would be much better if we vote in a presidential candidate who understands that. Of course, before we can vote in that candidate, the voters must understand that is the single most critical issue in front of us.

Newt understands that. Ron Paul understands that. Rick Perry understood that. I'm not at all sure Romney understands that though. While I suspect Santorum understands that, I'm a little fuzzy on his exact stance.


Now, the main purpose of a PAC is to get a candidate's message out. That message includes not only the candidate's stance, but also to explain what's wrong with the competitors. Obviously, the more money there is, the more the message can get out. In that sense, the PACs are a literal Godsend.

As are the numerous debates ...

I'm not really interested of Newt's monies, I do care of the thinking and action of the conservative Supreme Court, the federal courts who heard the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission case, and what if any, grass-root organizations moving to fight this atrocity.

Yes, I believe that the so-called conservative Supreme Court began this mass influx of mega-monies from mega-entities. Why Nighthawkeye would they have ruled like this?

Do all conservatives feel this is the best way to fund political coffers and candidates?

Of course not. I usually only speak for myself, Lovely Lane. Most conservatives consider that a virtue.

Being a Democrat, I don't like it at all.

I'm not surprised. The way of the "left" has been suppression of speech through a variety of mechanisms. I can imagine that being exposed to free speech for the first time in a good while would be unnerving. My own reaction when I heard that the Supreme court had ruled on McCain-Feingold was an immediate sense of relief and joy.

If it's any consolation for you, Lovely Lane, it appears that election success isn't really tied as closely to campaign spending as many have supposed. Romney's apparently outspent Gingrich by quite a bit, yet his poll numbers show him well behind at the moment. Maybe opinion will catch up with his campaign spending though.

And I bet the Obama campaign has been receiving plenty of money through this process too.

He has ... apparently, more than Romney and the Republicans. That's why Obama's already advertising so heavily ... he's got a lot of polishing, er, spending to do ...


Aren't all the debates great for getting the candidate's messages out to the voters. The candidates not only get questioned, they get to grill their opponents. I like it. It adds real value, IMHO.

 

[JoyJuice]

Thought we went over this subject already. Anyway, for the record ...


For comparison, it would be interesting to know what the donations into Romney's SuperPAC have been.

If reports are to be believed, Romney's SuperPAC has greatly outspent Newt's SuperPAC. Yet, Newt has more support currently. Weird. Explain that one to me, Lovely Lane. Romney spends vastly more money to secure the election, yet Newt leads in all the polls. Why is that, Lovely Lane?

Nighthawkeye, it may behoove you to look at your own links. If you dig further you'll see the majority of Obama's donations are from individual, and mostly small capped donations. I think the OP's topic is super pacs, which again if you look at Obama, he so far has no pac money from the industry you highlight, let lone super pac type donations.

 

[stamperben]

Nighthawkeye, it may behoove you to look at your own links. If you dig further you'll see the majority of Obama's donations are from individual, and mostly small capped donations. I think the OP's topic is super pacs, which again if you look at Obama, he so far has no pac money from the industry you highlight, let lone super pac type donations.

Don't you find that details take away from the rhetoric though?

 

[JoyJuice]

Don't you find that details take away from the rhetoric though?

I can't remember who to attribute the quote to, but "facts are stubborn things."

 

[Autumnleaf]

The rise of the super pacs is disgusting.

A rose by any other name has been around for thousands of years. This is a new name to an old tradition.

 

[stamperben]

I can't remember who to attribute the quote to, but "facts are stubborn things."

John Adams

 

[stamperben]

A rose by any other name has been around for thousands of years. This is a new name to an old tradition.

No, political action committees directly connected to a candidate and subject to the candidate's being held responsible for its actions have been around in the past. These Super-PACs are a new dog on the block. A dangerous new dog.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Nighthawkeye, it may behoove you to look at your own links. If you dig further you'll see the majority of Obama's donations are from individual, and mostly small capped donations. I think the OP's topic is super pacs, which again if you look at Obama, he so far has no pac money from the industry you highlight, let lone super pac type donations.

Somehow, that just doesn't help me feel any better about an Obama second term. Thanks, anyway though.

 

[JoyJuice]

Somehow, that just doesn't help me feel any better about an Obama second term. Thanks, anyway though.

That's up to you. But I like to think if you criticize someone, understand the criticism levied.

Personally, I think it speaks better from a grassroots perspective if most of one's donations were small and a plenty, then someone who is basically being sponosored by a oligarchy....don't you?

 

[NightHawkeye]

That's up to you. But I like to think if you criticize someone, understand the criticism levied.

Personally, I think it speaks better from a grassroots perspective if most of one's donations were small and a plenty, then someone who is basically being sponosored by a oligarchy....don't you?

I kinda judge things on individual merits. I find the information useful, but inconclusive.

Doesn't affect my opinion of Obama any ...

 

[JoyJuice]

I kinda judge things on individual merits. I find the information useful, but inconclusive.

Doesn't affect my opinion of Obama any ...

But judging on individual merits is the polar opposite you are doing. What you are doing is generalizing; in light of facts being stubborn things that undemine in this case your generalizing the nuance of contributions.

 

[Lovely Lane]

nighthawkeye

Obviously, the more money there is, the more the message can get out. In that sense, the PACs are a literal Godsend.

nighthawkeye

I'm not surprised. The way of the "left" has been suppression of speech through a variety of mechanisms. I can imagine that being exposed to free speech for the first time in a good while would be unnerving. My own reaction when I heard that the Supreme court had ruled on McCain-Feingold was an immediate sense of relief and joy.

As usual, I only learn from what nighthawkeye fails to speak to. Amazing, ask him a direct question and watch for the GOP South Florida Cuban Dance step. It's kinda cute at first, but one can easily see it is overwhelmingly rehearsed.

 

[NightHawkeye]

nighthawkeye

nighthawkeye

As usual, I only learn from what nighthawkeye fails to speak to. Amazing, ask him a direct question and watch for the GOP South Florida Cuban Dance step. It's kinda cute at first, but one can easily see it is overwhelmingly rehearsed.

You make it sound like I'm wasting my words on you ...

 

[Autumnleaf]

No, political action committees directly connected to a candidate and subject to the candidate's being held responsible for its actions have been around in the past. These Super-PACs are a new dog on the block. A dangerous new dog.

You mean politicians have not been using money to influence the crowd with bread and circuses for thousands of years? Is money paid to politicians in exchange for favorable treatment really so new to this brave new world of ours?

Seriously, this stuff probably started happening right after the first profession started up. But if you want to keep trying to connect super pac to Newt and make it look like he's a devious evil mastermind then don't let me spoil your fun.

 

[Lovely Lane]

We use to have laws about how much and from whom. I have no idea what the law is today. But I'm sure that it is still true today as it was in Washington's, politicians don't necessary tell the truth, Campaign Ad's are misleading, and today's GOP has no new ideas.

 

[Autumnleaf]

We use to have laws about how much and from whom. I have no idea what the law is today. But I'm sure that it is still true today as it was in Washington's, politicians don't necessary tell the truth, Campaign Ad's are misleading, and today's GOP has no new ideas.

We've always had laws about politicians and money, just like we've always had loop holes around those laws. Its like the tax code. Sure its designed to be fair, but its fairer for some than it is for others.