There are some new gangs in our political neighborhoods called "super PACS" and they distorted the outcome in a number of states during the Republican presidential nomination campaign.
First, let's briefly review how these new super PACS came into being. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations and unions deserved free speech rights, and, as Justice Kennedy said, campaign spending does "not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." The result was that corporations and unions would be allowed to make direct contributions in political campaigns.
Shortly after that, the Circuit Court of Appeals found that because of the Citizens United decision "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption." Therefore, they removed the limits on individuals, corporations or unions contributions to independent Political Action Committees.
Super PACs were born.
Super PACs' impact was demonstrated immediately in the Iowa caucuses. On December 5, 2011, one month before caucus night, Newt Gingrich was gaining popularity nationally and was beating Romney in Iowa by 31% to 17% in the CBS/New York Times poll. Then the Romney Super PAC struck. It spent $335,000 the next week attacking Gingrich and Gingrich's support fell to 27 %. The next week it spent $779,000 and Gingrich fell to 25%. The next week $663,000 and Gingrich fell to 14%.
By caucus night, Romney's super PAC had spent $3.4 million and Gingrich's super PAC less than $800,000. The Iowa Republican party announced that Romney was the winner, but the real news was that Romney's super PAC money had reduced Gingrich from 33% of the vote to 13% in just one month of negative ads.
After Iowa, Gingrich dropped his "no negative ads" promise and his super PAC received $5 million from Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. In South Carolina his super PAC matched the Romney super PAC almost dollar for dollar, and Gingrich was victorious.
Gingrich was confident. He was coming off a big win, and was tied with Romney in Florida with 10 days to go. "Overnight a storm rained dollars on the television," said Susan MacManus, a University of South Florida political scientist. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, Romney and his allies, especially his super PAC, aired 12,768 television commercials to just 210 by Gingrich and his supporters. The Wesleyan co-director said, "It's one-sided domination. If you have a television on in Orlando or Fort Myers or West Palm Beach, you are seeing Romney ads and very few pro-Gingrich ads." The final totals were Romney's super PAC $17.4 million to just $9 million for Gingrich's super PAC. Of this, Romney's group spent $16 million in negative ads to only $3 million in negative ads by Gingrich's.
Romney won Florida, and Gingrich's campaign for president was over for all intents and purposes. No matter how you feel about Newt Gingrich, the process that destroyed him has to leave you queasy. He was destroyed by an entity running without contribution limits of any kind.
With Gingrich dispatched, the Romney super PAC turned its attention to former senator Rick Santorum.
When Santorum was gaining on Romney in his home state of Michigan, Romney's Super PAC turned on the money ad spigot and preserved a narrow victory. It was the same story in pivotal Ohio. Romney's super PAC ran 3,313 ads in the final 10 days as opposed to only 722 for the Santorum super PAC. Romney squeaked out victory by four-fifths of a percentage point.
It was fitting that super PACs should bring the campaign to an end. Santorum announced he was dropping out of the race two weeks before the primary in his home state of Pennsylvania, and right after Romney's super PAC announced that they were about to spend $2.9 million in negative TV ads.
In the end Romney's super PAC spent $40 million in unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals. Its TV ads were over 90% negative. Everything they did was totally legal.
Norm Ornstein, Resident Scholar at American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., summed it up best when he said about Justice Kennedy's statement that there could be no corruption in independent spending, "What planet does he live on?"
I'm afraid we will have to live through this election year with super PACs as they now exist. Let's just hope that after November, both parties will agree to end this threat to our system.
Bob Cesca: The Dumbest Show on Fox News Channel Ever
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Gingrich was the heir to the "not Romney" vote, which has gone though the hands of Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Rich Perry, and Herman Cain. It only touched Gingrich for a few fleeting weeks before heading to Rick Santorum. In every case, Republicans who weren't hot for Romney looked for the strongest alternative, only to turn away as those candidates' flaws were vetted (coincidentally, that's a big part of what modern primaries are for).
Did Gingrich pick up some money from that and use it to buy add? Yup. On the other hand, Romney was the frontrunner from the beginning and ended up winning - what did all of Aldeson's money really accomplish?
It's also silly to say that SuperPACs are seriously changing the way elections are run (financed, perhaps, but not run). SuperPACs didn't exist in 2000 when Bush supporters put out sleazy phone polls before the primary asking people if they would support McCain less if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman (he had not, but the way that the question was phrased clearly implied he did).
People who think differently are just upset that they are not entrepreneurial enough to produce or own one.
Ah, those who do not understand sarcasm should avoid replying to this comment.
I like the term "Poison Pacs". Either side is welcome to use it.
Thanks. and fanned back.
http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cu/
I hope more Huffposters pay attention ...
This is a very grisly murder story - a whodunit with hidden millions of dollars used for destruction of our nation to benefit those who don't want to pay taxes ... those who don't want anyone telling them what to do by regulating the dirty air or water they spew into our lives.
This year, we will be inundated with dirty political ads over our "public airwaves" by the hundreds of thousands. The billionaires who don't want to pay taxes, who don't want anything they do regulated by any laws, who are probably stuck in the emotional age of two years old, may will get what they want ....
SS in stock market? crash of 1973--1981-1987-1989-2001-2008
My fund zap 80%.
My pal lost 3M in one week in 2001.
Â
1973 Oil created crash--1980 before Dow was back to 1973 value.
Â
Do not mess with SS except minor adjustments
All is needed is so very simple
CAP----lift it gradually as is needed. The rich can afford it. No pain.
Why have teacher-police-mill worker pay 6.2% and income 10M up pay 1% or less.
I do not care the politics this is unfair in any land..Right is Right.Stop this attack for the Wall Street promoters who want that money for gambling
Â
SS is fabulous.Local Economy. Restaurants woud go under without SS eating on SS checks.
Â
Dr. ranked in top ten Opthalmalogists in America. Told me he was no longer taking Medicare patients due to cut in government subsidy. When I went out into his lobby I had to laugh. Nice try old pal. I recognized most (15) patients. Medicare. Few months I called for checkup and asked is he was still taking Medicare patients.Oh! Yes.
Told me he was unaware how much of his revenue  came from Medicare.
Po old pal. Two hours made $10,000....
The political information I DO receive is sought out and it's always wrapped in the very liberal slant that I prefer. Even when I view a negative ad or negative information on "The Daily Show" or one the blog pages, the negativity is book ended with the opposing view. So, today as opposed to twenty years ago, I'm able to edit, almost exactly, what information I receive.
So, these super PACs aren't reaching me as well as they'd like and I think this might be same for many people. Statistics indicate that the older you get, the less tech savvy you are so older people above 60 are more likely to view these television ads and not go online. Statistics also show that the older crowd are more likely to lean republican so older republicans are more likely to view these ads from BOTH sides and have more of a chance of being influenced. These ads probably had lots of influence in the republican primaries, but how will the republican super PAC's reach the young independents who could help them win?
Finally, many vote the same as their parents, like it or not.