Big-money donors bet heavily on the GOP

As USA Today reports, eight of the 10 biggest contributors to SuperPACs this election cycle have been backers of conservative causes or candidates.

And those are only the contributions that have become public record.

American Crossroads Super PAC, headed by Karl Rove, reports that it had raised $99.8 million by the end of March, but thanks to the Citizens United decision and other vagaries of federal law, it is not required to disclose who contributed that money. We know only that it has received 24 donations of a million dollars or more, and two donations of $10 million or more, and together those large donations account for 87 percent of its contributions.

In stark contrast, The New York Times reported Saturday that the Obama campaign is struggling a bit to tap big-money contributors, “with sharp dropoffs in donations from nearly every major industry forcing it to rely more than ever on small contributions and a relative handful of major donors….”

“From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago,” the Times reports.

The numbers are stark. As the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute reports, 44 percent of the money raised by the Obama campaign so far has come in contributions of $200 or less. In contrast, small donors account for just 9 percent of the cash raised so far by Mitt Romney. As of late March, he had raised less from small donors than either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, the guys and gals on Wall Street are also placing their bets.

“… so far this election, Mr. Romney is taking in far more money from financial firms than the president. By the end of March, the Romney camp had collected more than $12 million from bankers and other financial professionals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

By contrast, Mr. Obama’s campaign took in at least $4.2 million from people in those industries in the same period, according to the same tally.”

The inflow of cash is also affecting congressional races. As the New York Times reports:

“The conservative groups that helped Republicans win the House in 2010 are pouring money this year into an aggressive campaign to capture the Senate, a goal that they consider just as vital as winning the White House.

Already, they have committed at least $17 million to television commercials in more than a dozen states from Florida to Hawaii, in most cases dwarfing what their Democratic opponents have spent. Their plans call for an effort that will exceed $100 million by Election Day, strategists for these groups said, far surpassing their efforts in 2010, a high-water mark for outside money in politics….

The Chamber of Commerce, which, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, spent more than $30 million on congressional races in 2010, said it will commit “measurably more” this year to House and Senate campaigns in what officials called the most significant political effort in its 100-year history.”

The defense industrial complex is making a play as well. As Politico reports, the defense industry is backing Republican candidates much more heavily than in recent cycles, with 60 percent of its contributions going to GOP candidates.

Now, there’s no need to shed tears for the poor, underfunded Obama campaign. Overall, it continues to do quite well in its fundraising, although nobody really knows how much money will come pouring into the conservative Super PACs run by Rove and others as the race really begins to heat up.

On the other hand, things may be considerably tougher for Democrats lower on the ballot. If individual candidates are targeted for defeat by deep-pocket GOP Super PACs, they may not have the financial resources they would need to respond.

This imbalance is, I think, the most important political story of this campaign cycle. It tells you a lot about the true nature of the race, the forces that are at work behind the scenes and what’s really at stake in this year’s outcome.

If the big-money investment pays off and the GOP ends up with control of both the White House and Congress, you will see a significant impact on the policies and priorities coming out of Washington. Tax law, environmental rules, labor relations, entitlements — we’re likely to see a repeat on the national level of what Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin attempted to do at the state level in 2011. It will make the Bush years seem tame by comparison.

On the other hand, if Obama wins despite the big-money contributions arrayed against him, he may start his second and final term feeling somewhat liberated from Wall Street and other big-money interests. Oh, he’ll still owe them. But what he owes them they may not like.

– Jay Bookman

571 comments Add your comment

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 24th, 2012
9:04 am

We need full-disclosure.

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:05 am

Buying Federal politicians isn’t for the faint and weak-hearted……….. or the for the poor…….

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:08 am

Best government money can buy …

thank god the donors are only doing it out of the goodness of their heart and not the promise of access …

TBone

April 24th, 2012
9:09 am

“On the other hand, if Obama wins despite the big-money contributions arrayed against him, he may start his second and final term feeling somewhat liberated from Wall Street and other big-money interests. Oh, he’ll still owe them. But what he owes them they may not like.”
What hog wash; this guy has shaken down more folks than the feared GOP.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:09 am

“if Obama wins despite the big-money contributions arrayed against him, he may start his second and final term feeling somewhat liberated from Wall Street and other big-money interests.”

give ‘em the chair!”"”

carlosgvv

April 24th, 2012
9:10 am

Big Business knows they have succeeded in a complete ownership of the Republican Party. This is why there is such a disparity in campaign contributions. If Romney wins and gets a Republican majority in the House and Senate, there will be all smiles in the corporate boardrooms and tears and anger in many American living rooms.
I just can’t help but wonder how much longer Big Business and the Republicans can keep fooling so many Americans into thinking they actually care anything about them.

bob

April 24th, 2012
9:11 am

I read that John Corzine of MF Global was still bundling contributions for Obama. I guess big money is ok if it comes from ex dem senators that stold 200 million from his investors.

ty webb

April 24th, 2012
9:11 am

Shorter Bookman: the rules of the game need to be changed only if they don’t support “my guy” this time.

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 24th, 2012
9:12 am

Is this really surprising? If you wage a war against success, is it a surprise that successful people wouldn’t contribute money to keep you around.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:12 am

“I just can’t help but wonder how much longer Big Business and the Republicans can keep fooling so many Americans into thinking they actually care anything about them.”

as long as they keep selling the myth that “through hard work, you, too, can become one of us”

hewhoasks

April 24th, 2012
9:13 am

Small money voters gotta think – and get tough.

Mick

April 24th, 2012
9:14 am

Another pivotal election, let’s just hope that the majority of americans learned the lessons of the 2010 midterms. The republican agenda is for the wealthy and against the common folk, especially women, they need to stand down and be more inclusive, this might be their last hurrah…

Peadawg

April 24th, 2012
9:14 am

Big Businesses and millionaires don’t want they’re taxes raised…of course they’re contributing money to help the GOP defeat Obama and make him a 1 term President (they’re favorite catch phrase).

Instead of throwing money at GOP Super PACS, they could use that money to hire people. Oh wait…they’re struggling.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:15 am

“(they’re favorite catch phrase).”

their

not they’re

this has been another helpful hint from Conan the Grammarian

Fight to the Finish

April 24th, 2012
9:15 am

Jay says,
On the other hand, if Obama wins despite the big-money contributions arrayed against him, he may start his second and final term feeling somewhat liberated from Wall Street and other big-money interests.

Obama WILL still win!
Obama/Biden 2012

kayaker 71

April 24th, 2012
9:15 am

The proverbial worm turns, does it not.

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:16 am

“eight of the 10 biggest contributors to SuperPACs this election cycle have been backers of conservative causes or candidates.”

First thought: they know who’s gonna butter their bread.

Now inhale, hold breath and wait for the spin of “business knows Obama’s an anti-business socialist marxist who wants to confiscate all their money and redistribute it, so of course they’re going to donate to someone who understands capitalism.”

barking frog

April 24th, 2012
9:16 am

The President doesn’t
need as much, he has
Air Force One.

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:17 am

Jay

It is still a little disconcerting that Obama would make “political hay” out of Repubs using Super Pacs when he thought it would achieve some political capital; then turn around and basically ask people to give to Super Pacs that will support him……

Doesn’t mean I’m running off to vote for Romney; but to me it speaks volumes on certain levels

Jay

April 24th, 2012
9:18 am

Bob, you’re right, and that’s troubling. We don’t know exactly what happened at Corzine’s firm, but what we do know is cause for very deep concern.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/21/corzine_amid_scandal_is_among_obamas_top_bundlers.html

However, as that story indicates, we know that Corzine is an Obama bundler because Obama reports his bundlers. Romney reports only those bundlers who are also registered as lobbyists.

Don't Tread

April 24th, 2012
9:18 am

And what did Obama raise in the last election – oh, somewhere around a billion dollars? Apparently raising money for elections is only a bad thing if you’re Republican.

And you can cry about Citizens United all you want – this is what happens when you (unconstitutionally) try to limit the 1st Amendment rights of people you don’t like and it blows up in your face.

kayaker 71

April 24th, 2012
9:18 am

Just wait until those Democratic incumbents running for their Senate and Congressional seats start turning down invitations for Bozo to speak at their campaign rallies. When that happens, Bozo better pack his bags.

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:19 am

Obama is such a cheapskate. All he asks me for is three bucks…………..

Fight to the Finish

April 24th, 2012
9:19 am

The biggest suprise of the November election will be when Georgia is given to President Obama as an early Christmas present!!

Tommy Maddox

April 24th, 2012
9:20 am

Gee Jay – is any of this new?

Jay

April 24th, 2012
9:20 am

BOTH, that’s not disconcerting to me in the slightest. Refusing to use SuperPACs this cycle would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament — it would pretty much guarantee that you get thrashed.

mm

April 24th, 2012
9:20 am

Let’s show the SC and these rich @sshats that they cannot buy elections. They will be shown that it probably would have been more productive to flush their money down the toilet.

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:20 am

“Just wait until those Democratic incumbents running for their Senate and Congressional seats start turning down invitations for Bozo to speak at their campaign rallies. When that happens, Bozo better pack his bags.”

Don’t be projecting 2006 Bush on him

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 24th, 2012
9:20 am

I think BET is the wrong term.

I think there are loads of better words for it

acquittal, advance, alimony, amends, amortization, amount, annuity, award, bounty, cash, defrayal, defrayment, deposit, disbursement, discharge, down, fee, hire, indemnification, outlay, part, pay-off, paying, pension, portion, premium, quittance, reckoning, recompense, redress, refund, reimbursement, remittance, remuneration, reparation, repayment, requital, restitution, retaliation, return, reward, salary, settlement, subsidy, sum, support, wage

Mick

April 24th, 2012
9:21 am

paul

**“business knows Obama’s an anti-business socialist marxist who wants to confiscate all their money and redistribute it,**

It really is incredible in this day and age that mythology has grown legs! It’s also a bit depressing because if garbage like that can be accepted as fact, why does that say about facts and truth? Are the lines forever blurred? Already seeing limbaughs bogus war against success meme creeping in, the gasbag preacheth…

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:21 am

Oh and for that three bucks? I COULD be selected to dine with Brother Barry and George Clooney in California………..

Peadawg

April 24th, 2012
9:21 am

“their

not they’re”

F off, USinUK. Like you’re perfect.

barking frog

April 24th, 2012
9:21 am

If Romney would invite
Obama to speak at his
campaign rallys they
would be better.

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:21 am

“Both, that’s not disconcerting to me in the slightest.”

Using them is one thing………. basically trashing the Republicans for using them then turning around to use them is another

kayaker 71

April 24th, 2012
9:24 am

suck, 9:21,

It’s that selective indignation rearing it’s ugly head.

JohnnyReb

April 24th, 2012
9:25 am

“This imbalance (money sources and amounts) is, I think, the most important political story of this campaign cycle.”

Disagree Jay. The most important story of this election cycle is not even the economy.

The most important point of this political cycle is what America will be going forward?

Will we become a decling welfare state under Obama, or will we return to our roots of Liberty, Capitalism, and individual responsibility?

Peadawg

April 24th, 2012
9:26 am

“Using them is one thing………. basically trashing the Republicans for using them then turning around to use them is another”

Agree w/ this one.

TaxPayer

April 24th, 2012
9:26 am

If Republicans gain more power in the next election, I just want to know how much more of a tax cut they’re gonna give me. Do you think maybe they’ll divert more payroll taxes toward tax cuts for the wealthiest or just borrow more money to give away to the wealthiest or both.

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:26 am

“The defense industrial complex is making a play as well. As Politico reports, the defense industry is backing Republican candidates much more heavily than in recent cycles, with 60 percent of its contributions going to GOP candidates.”

Well of course they are. They know, no matter how dismal their performance, Republicans will give them more money, all the while saying “Solyndra’s an example of Democrats thinking government should pick winners and losers.”

I’ve posted before about the nearly one TRILLION in additional lifecycle costs for the F-35. (Sinkwich had a typical response – just give’me time. No such sentiment for renewable energy, though).

Now the Navy’s taking delivery of ships in the multibillion dollar littoral ship program. Taken delivery. As in accepted by the Navy. After some Navy leaders tried to kill it because it is sooooo expensive. The one delivered in 2008 has had 17 cracks in the hull which caused 640 equipment failures.

But Republicans say ’so what? We’re going to increase Defense spending!!!”

Yeah, big business know Republicans love to talk about responsibility and accountability. But not for them.

Joe the Prophet

April 24th, 2012
9:26 am

ExxonMobil has a TV commercial where they tout their “Education Initiative”….while they fight tooth and nail to keep their subsidies….

Why don’t they just lobby to end their subsidies and said monies could go to education…

bob

April 24th, 2012
9:27 am

Is it true that Bain Capital has given twice as much to dems than repubs ? Bain Capital is bad, why would dems even take that dirty money ?

Mick

April 24th, 2012
9:28 am

**Will we become a decling welfare state under Obama**

How so? Why are you tagging him thus? Didn’t we have an economic meltdown that basically wrecked the world economy? Stop the lies…

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:29 am

Will we become a decling welfare state under Obama, or will we return to our roots of Liberty, Capitalism, and individual responsibility?

What is sad JReb is that you believe these lies you are spouting even though there isn’t one shred of proof to them. The whole talk radio position is one based on hate and lies. They have perfected Josef Goebbels propaganda process. You are living proof. You live in abject terror and absolution irrational hatred of Barak Obama for no logical reason.

It’s sad, really sad.

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:29 am

Kayaker

It certainly occurs both ways……..

While I am no fan of the Super Pacs, they are what they are and to Jay’s point any candidate would be slaughtered without them…….

To me, it would have been best for Obama to not have trashed Republicans and just left it alone…..

Some people don’t mind Super Pacs, others don’t mind if Obama was “slight” hypocritical in his words and actions on Super Pacs, but I find it disconcerting…

With that said, Romney and I disagree on a lot more things than just Super Pacs and what Obama said about them……..

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:29 am

Mick

I still don’t have a good answer for ‘why’ but I think there may be a clue in nature. A seed will sprout and grow if it’s given favorable conditions. So these outlandish ideas float about, then settle on a host that is predisposed to accept it and provide, without question, an ideal environment to sprout and grow.

Joe the Prophet

April 24th, 2012
9:30 am

Here’s how it’s going to work…….Housing is coming back….That gives people confidence…They spend more money…..Companies have to start hiring….It starts becoming evident (if it hasn’t already) that Romney doesn’t stand a chance….The wealthy starts to realize they are going to have to start investing in WORKERS rather than LEGISLATORS if they want money…..and the economy takes off…..

The “1% tax cut strategy” goes out the window….

in other words

April 24th, 2012
9:30 am

“if Obama wins

He won’t. Now get back to attacking anything other than Obama.

USMC

April 24th, 2012
9:31 am

real john

April 24th, 2012
9:31 am

Jay,

Just do a quick Google search of Obama’s $35,000 a plate fundraising dinners. Between Hollywood, NBA, NFL, and super wealthy donors in New York and San Francisco, I think Obama is doing quite okay.

Remember about a month ago when Obama flew into Atlanta at 5:30 on a Friday and shut down the whole downtown connector. He was here for a fundraiser in Midtown and another with Tyler Perry.

To still a line from ESPN “Come on man” are you REALLY trying to saying that poor ole Obama’s campaign isn’t also being financed by many high rollers too?? Of course it is, both Reps and Dems have big money backers.

James Thomas

April 24th, 2012
9:31 am

Of course we have had a brutal republican primary and an uncontested democrat primary. I’m sure that had absolutely nothing with the amount of contributions going to VARIOUS republican candidates.

Jay…Your ability to obscure data in your own interest is absolutely unbelievable. You have all these unreasonable blog followers up in arms based on errant data. The sad part is how many of you simply cannot see it.

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:31 am

JohnnyReb

“Capitalism, and individual responsibility?”

Can you bump that up against my 9:26?

barking frog

April 24th, 2012
9:32 am

SuperPacs enrich the
advertising media,
no one else.

Bruno

April 24th, 2012
9:32 am

Is this really surprising? If you wage a war against success, is it a surprise that successful people wouldn’t contribute money to keep you around.

Steve–I couldn’t have said it any better. It looks like the Intrade folks still favor Obama 60-40%, but the Romney graph is showing an upward trend.

https://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?contractId=743475&tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:32 am

meant to say “slightly hypocritical”……… and “slightly” was a joke………

Jm

April 24th, 2012
9:32 am

Money doesn’t buy elections

bob

April 24th, 2012
9:33 am

Paul, Ike warned of the industrial military complex so the Defense Department has dominated other depts. in terms of money for some time. It seems as though the dem party had a lock on congress during that buildup, do you blame dems at all for the amount of money they spent giving us the military industrial complex ? You cannot blame it on someone getting elected president 30 years after we knew about the Military industrial complex can we ? Yes we can and do blame Reagan and repubs because we seem to forget about when the power shifted and little skirmishes like VietNam.

Mike

April 24th, 2012
9:33 am

my Dad was right, you’ve really got to be a low life at heart to want to be a politician. The fact that most of them are lawyers, should tell us a lot. I deal with lawyers daily, and most of them are despicable human beings. (I said most, not all).

stands for decibels

April 24th, 2012
9:33 am

give ‘em the chair!

I know you didn’t mean this chair, but ya gotta keep your options open.

USMC

April 24th, 2012
9:33 am

James Thomas

April 24th, 2012
9:33 am

Real John…You miss Jay’s point. He knows Obama isn’t hurting for major contributors.. He’s just doing his part as a journalist to make it appear Obama is for the little guy and the Republicans are all heartless wealthy people.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:34 am

“F off, USinUK. Like you’re perfect.”

ooooooooooooooooooooooo … someone’s a bit touchy today …

just trying to be helpful … your vs. you’re … their vs. they’re … it’s all part of the service

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:34 am

Joe the Prophet

April 24th, 2012
9:30 am

Here’s how it’s going to work…….Housing is coming back….That gives people confidence…They spend more money…..Companies have to start hiring….
++++++++++++++++++++++

Why? Or I guess the better question would be what makes you think they have to start hiring AMERICANS? They’ve gotten by making record profits while laying off workers and off shoring jobs, what is going to change to reverse that trend?

Peadawg

April 24th, 2012
9:34 am

“Of course it is, both Reps and Dems have big money backers.”

True. But the GOP has more!!!

(weak argument, I know. But that’s basically what Jay’s saying)

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 24th, 2012
9:34 am

USMC

You seem to be confusing Super Pacs and Campaign War chests.

carlosgvv

April 24th, 2012
9:34 am

USinUK – 9:12

“through hard work, you, too, can become one of us” (only if you have no conscience)

mm

April 24th, 2012
9:35 am

“And what did Obama raise in the last election – oh, somewhere around a billion dollars?”

I thought that lie applied to the current election.

blackstarline

April 24th, 2012
9:35 am

Why wouldn’t big money donors bet heavily on the GOP, the GOP will actually make you pay for disloyalty, and during the Bush administration actually refused to speak to anyone that didn’t exclusively donate to the GOP on K street. The cowardly DemocRATS only encourage the donors to do more of this by not punishing anyone (oh except for repeatedly stabbing their base in the back), when they get in power. Then they spend all their time implementing Republican light policies.
So to sum it up Republicans get paid to win, do nothing DemocRATS get paid to loose, and the middle class gets to suffer while the wealthy corporations get buy off congress, steal from the treasury to shore up their books, and ship jobs overseas. If your not angry your just not paying attention.

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:36 am

dB@ 9:33: Linky no clicky, no worky

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:36 am

dB – I tried to youtube link Shrek, but, alas, it wasn’t listed …

Jm

April 24th, 2012
9:36 am

Empirical data shows money has a tiny influence on election outcomes

ByteMe - Political thug for sale

April 24th, 2012
9:37 am

There’s a missing dynamic here:

1. Small donors are also likely to be motivated voters. So are big donors, but their vote counts the same. So if you have a lot of small donors, you have a lot of voters with a vested interest in your success. Obama has more of those right now. Romney doesn’t seem to be connecting with them. Small donations also means you can go back to the well when you need more money, since the person hasn’t maxxed out their cycle contribution.

2. Big focused money only works if there’s a message that resonates that you can repeat over and over using TV time that isn’t skipped over by TiVo. After a while, though, all those competing political messages just become noise to be filtered out by the viewer. So it there has to be a resonating message. We’re too early in the cycle to see if either side has one that’s not just negative about the other side.

Jay

April 24th, 2012
9:37 am

So USMC, you’re posting stories that are more than a year old? A story that has already been thoroughly discredited? (See below, as one of many many such rebuttals)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-billion-dollar-campaign-thats-bullsh/

stands for decibels

April 24th, 2012
9:37 am

yeah, Fred, and when linkee no workee on one liner, I usually just figure I fcrewed up and leave it at that…

but if you must:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singchair.jpg

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:37 am

bob

“It seems as though the dem party had a lock on congress during that buildup, do you blame dems at all for the amount of money they spent giving us the military industrial complex ?”

Of course.

But in the here and now, Democrats at various levels have offered to put all spending up for cuts.

Republicans, at all levels, specifically reject any Defense cuts and in fact call for increases.

USinUK

“someone’s a bit touchy today ”

Hmmm. I just took it as a grudging admission from him he knows there’s no way he can keep up with you.

Jm

April 24th, 2012
9:37 am

“. It will make the Bush years seem tame by comparison.”

Hyperbole alert!

stands for decibels

April 24th, 2012
9:39 am

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:39 am

USinUK: I’m boycotting your site until that pornographic mayo is off. Can’t do anything french here………….

( :lol: )

Watkins

April 24th, 2012
9:39 am

If the Republicans capture all branches of government in 2012, we will undoubtedly face the possibility of a kind of fiscal totalitarianism that will end the American experiment. I say “all branches” because putting majorities in both houses of congress and their candidate in the White House will insure a completely partisan majority in the SCOTUS. When the judicial branch no longer fills the role of protecting the minority from the majority, we may not see meaningful multiparty elections. Citizens United’s unbelievable stretch to extend the Constitution portends dark days ahead. Even Republicans shouldn’t want a one party system.

TaxPayer

April 24th, 2012
9:39 am

Empirical data shows money has a tiny influence on election outcomes

What! Your dollar didn’t get your candidate elected.

(ir)Rational

April 24th, 2012
9:40 am

Jay – I’m not USMC, and I feel certain he can fight his own battles, but this story is from Saturday. How does it play into your narrative?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/04/21/obama-out-raises-romney.html

Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")

April 24th, 2012
9:40 am

I will be fascinated to hear about the Media buys for the days right before the election from the Super-Pac’s and how much false information is included in those ads.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

April 24th, 2012
9:40 am

Well, this whole campaign money stuff is just another way of saying how stupid the American voter is. Why do they need all that money? Why, to put out ads—that’s why. Ol’ Joe Six-Pack ain’t got the brainpower to figure out what’s happened to him the past 4 or 8 yrs. and what will happen to him if each canadate wins. No, he’s got to set in front of the TV and be told what will happen. And he’ll beleive it! He’s been slathered up and bent over till he can’t feel hardly anything. And now a bunch of TV ads is going to make up his mind for him. A billion bucks worth of ads on each side. And Ol’ Joe is going to let them decide who he’ll vote for. It will all come down to which side can tell the biggest whoppers and who can get in the best punch.

I just wish Joe would stay home on election day. We might could be alot better off.

Have a good Tuesday everybody.

real john

April 24th, 2012
9:41 am

George Clooney, Spike Lee, Eva Longoria, the former COO of Microsoft, and Tyler Perry…

Just average citizens who have all hosted $35,000 per plate fundraising dinners for Obama in the last few months.

Obama also had a $35,000 on March 1st, 2012 with several Wall Street executives.

This took me all of 30 seconds on a Google search. If you spent a good half hour, you would find about 25 more examples…

stands for decibels

April 24th, 2012
9:42 am

we’re likely to see a repeat on the national level of what Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin attempted to do at the state level in 2011. It will make the Bush years seem tame by comparison.

in other words…

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/04/i-miss-ike-nixon-ronnie-george-i-oh.html

Tester

April 24th, 2012
9:42 am

Refusing to use SuperPACs this cycle would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament — it would pretty much guarantee that you get thrashed.

In other words, Bookman doesn’t believe in the principles on which he stands.

What about Obama’s 2008 campaign?

WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama’s decision to walk away from more than $84 million in taxpayer money for the general election signals trouble for a system created to limit the influence of special interests, experts say.

Obama on Thursday set aside an early promise to use public funds for the fall and became the first presidential nominee to bypass the system since it was created in 1976 after the Watergate scandal.–USA TODAY

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:42 am

Jm – 9:36

and the sun is a little warm ;-)

ByteMe - Political thug for sale

April 24th, 2012
9:43 am

Just average citizens who have all hosted $35,000 per plate fundraising dinners for Obama in the last few months.

And on the other side, a single person or two who can drop a $10 million check down on the tray as needed. Think about the math.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:43 am

Fred – 9:39 – then you REALLY won’t like the chicken salad I’m going to post today

Watkins

April 24th, 2012
9:44 am

What would happen if only individuals could contribute to campaigns. Congress people would have to come to their districts and actually connect with constituents. Fundraisers would be BBQ picnics in parks with the community invited and donations would be in the hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands. Political decisions would be based on people (who, incidentally, would not necessarily be anit-business). Think about it.

USinUK

April 24th, 2012
9:45 am

“In other words, Bookman doesn’t believe in the principles on which he stands.”

no … more like NO ONE believes in hobbling yourself for the “greater good” … you’re not going to be very effective if you’re sitting at home, alone with your principles.

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:45 am

(ir)Rational

April 24th, 2012
9:40 am

Jay – I’m not USMC, and I feel certain he can fight his own battles, but this story is from Saturday. How does it play into your narrative?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’m not Jay but what is your point? From your own article:

“Still, an anticipated fire hose of cash from major Republican “super-PACs” and the Republican Party is likely to bring some financial parity to the general election.

Super-PACs such as American Crossroads and its nonprofit arm, Crossroads GPS, raised $100 million this election cycle, and the groups plan to flood the airwaves in coming months with ads critical of Obama.”

It’s these super pacs that Jay is writing about. they “donations” that don’t HAVE a limit or a paper trail……….

They BOTH suck

April 24th, 2012
9:45 am

“Now, there’s no need to shed tears for the poor, underfunded Obama campaign. Overall, it continues to do quite well in its fundraising,”

Why I questioned Jay about Obama’s hypocrisy on Super Pacs, the quote above from his column clearly states that Obama is also being funded quite well………..

JohnnyReb

April 24th, 2012
9:46 am

Fred ™

April 24th, 2012
9:29 am

Will we become a decling welfare state under Obama, or will we return to our roots of Liberty, Capitalism, and individual responsibility?

What is sad JReb is that you believe these lies you are spouting even though there isn’t one shred of proof to them. The whole talk radio position is one based on hate and lies. They have perfected Josef Goebbels propaganda process. You are living proof. You live in abject terror and absolution irrational hatred of Barak Obama for no logical reason.

It’s sad, really sad.
____________________

Fred, how much more evidence do you need to realize what Obama has done and intends to do? He stated before reelection he is for spreading the wealth and he has set about doing so.

The line against Democrats for years has been big spending and big government. Obama personifies that.

I am sincere in my belief that more of Obama would be a disaster for America. I really, really hope we take all of congress and the white house so we can set about fixing his damage.

When I think of Obama supporters, I see too many with their hand out and others who would cut the Constitution to shreds. It’s sad, really sad.

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:47 am

real john

The point is not that candidates raise money from donors.

It’s about the level of donations, the ratio between candidates, and more importantly, the industries they comprise.

Jefferson

April 24th, 2012
9:48 am

Somebody is wasting their money.

(ir)Rational

April 24th, 2012
9:48 am

The point Fred, is that Jay writes this article making out like Obama is so far behind in raising money for the election that there is no way he can catch up. Yet, if you read, and obviously you did, the evidence shows that it will take the “super-PACs” to even make it even. There are two sides to every story, and this seems to be the side that doesn’t fit so well with what we’re being fed here.

Road Scholar

April 24th, 2012
9:48 am

Redneck: Not only what your post says is true, but add that the American public is not smart enough to get differing opinions and can deduce the impacts and embrace a position/candidate passed on deductive reasoning! People who watch FOX don’t watch/get info from liberal sources, as does liberals who watch MSNBC. The majority have no patience to actually take the time get the facts and concurrent opinions from news shows that are on PBS. That lasts more than their 30 second attention time span.

Bruno

April 24th, 2012
9:48 am

Will we become a decling welfare state under Obama, or will we return to our roots of Liberty, Capitalism, and individual responsibility?

Paul and Fred–I see that both of you rejected JohnnyReb’s summary of Obama’s Presidency. Although he paints with a broad brush and his strokes are somewhat exaggerated, I think his overall artwork is accurate, especially in regard to personal responsibility. From nearly his first day in office, Obama has attempted to divide our country into Villains and Victims. Even if there were some truth to that, it’s not healthy for our national psyche to think that way. Self-pity and resentment are among the most toxic of drugs. I look forward to Romney winning simply to hear a more positive message.

Paul

April 24th, 2012
9:49 am

Tester

“In other words, Bookman doesn’t believe in the principles on which he stands.”

So you think it’s a bad quality for a President to adjust to reality based on new circumstances?

And you’d prefer a President who never, ever adapts, no matter what’s going on in the world?

real john

April 24th, 2012
9:49 am

Jay,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/obama-fundraising-romney-cash-advantage_n_1441692.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

According to this article published two days ago, Obama is benefitting the most from Big Money donors…