Buying The Vote: 12 Facts About Super PACs That Will Blow Your Mind

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

In American politics, it takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns, and the rise of the “Super PACs” is allowing the wealthy to exert even more influence over the political process than they did before.  When you examine the results of federal elections over the past several decades, you quickly discover that the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.  Wealthy individuals are limited by law as to how much money they can give directly to a political campaign, but there are no limits on how much money they can give to Super PACs.  During the 2012 election season, some of these Super PACs actually have more money than the campaigns of the candidates that they support do.  Buying the vote is not illegal in America, and these Super PACs are buying huge amounts of advertising in key states.  Unfortunately, most Americans have never learned to think for themselves.  Instead, they let the television do much of their thinking for them.  If their trusted friend, the television, tells them to vote a certain way, then that is what they are likely to do.  Super PACs are much more likely to run negative ads than the actual candidates are, and we have already seen very negative ads dramatically move the poll numbers in some of the states.  Sadly, as long as very negative ads keep working people are going to keep using them.


Super PACs are supposed to be completely and totally “independent” of the campaigns that they support, but the reality is that many of these Super PACs are run and staffed by former top aides of the candidates.

Some of the candidates are relying on the Super PACs to be the “attack dogs” while they sit back and try to maintain a more “positive” image.  If a Super PAC goes too far, a candidate can simply claim that he does not have any control over that Super PAC.

If money did not influence elections, then people would stop giving so much of it to the campaigns and to the Super PACs.  The truth is that money does influence elections, and when wealthy individuals and big corporations are allowed to pour millions upon millions of dollars into these Super PACs it gives them a much, much larger say in the outcome of our elections than you and I have.

When Mitt Romney stated that he was “not concerned about the very poor“, he may have misspoke, but there was some truth to what he was saying.  Mitt Romney and the other candidates don’t need the poor.  What they need is to keep the flow of money coming from the rich so that they can buy the votes of the poor.

When you have a very high percentage of “sheeple” in a society, the hearts and minds of the people can be bought.  Our horrific education system has dumbed-down the general population, and most Americans spend their days in an entertainment-induced haze.  Critical thinking is in short supply in the United States today, and most Americans are more than happy to have someone else tell them what to think.

Politics has become a war of money, and Super PACs are “bazookas” in that war.

The following are 12 facts about Super PACs that will blow your mind….

#1 Sheldon Adelson and members of his family have already given more than $10 million to Winning Our Future – the Super PAC that is promoting Newt Gingrich.

$10 million dollars sounds like a lot of money, but a recent CNN article put these donations into perspective….

Recent estimates peg his net worth at around $20 billion. That means his $10 million donation was exactly one twentieth of one percent of his net worth. Yes, 0.05%.

That would be like a millionaire giving a $500 donation. Or a $50 gift for someone worth $100,000.

#2 Texas businessman Harold C. Simmons has given more than $14 million to Republican Super PACs during this election season.

#3 Overall, well over $50 million has been spent by Super PACs so far and we have not even gotten to the general election yet.

#4 The Red, White And Blue Fund, a Super PAC that supports Rick Santorum, has raised at least 2.8 million dollars so far.

#5 Winning Our Future (the Newt Gingrich Super PAC) has raised at least 13.1 million dollars so far.

#6 American Crossroads, a super PAC that boasts Karl Rove as a senior adviser, has raised at least 23.4 million dollars so far.

#7 Restore Our Future, a super PAC that was created by former aides of Mitt Romney, has raised at least 36.8 million dollars so far.

#8 In January, Mitt Romney’s campaign raised 6.54 million dollars.  Restore Our Future raised even more than that – 6.62 million dollars.

#9 The four Republican presidential candidates raised a total of more than 21 million dollars in January.  Their Super PACs raised a total of more than 22 million dollars.

#10 Donations from New York, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, California and Texas make up 2 out of every 3 dollars raised by the Super PACs.

#11 During the race for the Republican nomination, 27 percent of all the ads run by the Republican candidates have been negative.  Conversely, about 75 percent of all the ads run by the Super PACs have been negative.

#12 The Federal Election Commission is projecting that a total of 11 billion dollars will be spent on political campaigns during the 2012 election season.

Right now, Mitt Romney has raised far more money than the other Republican candidates have an his Super PAC has raised far more money than the other Republican Super PACs have.

It doesn’t really matter that he is just a slightly more experienced version of Barack Obama.  He has the money, he has the support of the establishment, and the mainstream media is telling Americans that he is the person that the “red team” is supposed to vote for.

Yes, there is always the chance that Romney could fall apart and that the Republican establishment would be forced to find another option.  Miracles do happen.

But remember, the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.  The following is from Politifact….

In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated.

Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

If you think that most Americans are going to sit down and critically assess the political positions of these candidates before deciding who to vote for you are being delusional.

Most Americans do what the television tells them to do.

And the candidates with the most money are able to buy more influence on television.

What do you think our founding fathers would say if they could see us now?

  • mondobeyondo

    We need PAC-Man, Ms. PAC-Man and Super PAC-Man to gobble up these fat-cat monsters. Yes, even PAC-Man Junior. That’s right. Eat them all alive, and you’ll earn 55,000 bonus points!

    (a throwback to my arcade game playing days…)

    • gary2

      have you ever heard of the MAME program that lets you play arcade games on your computer? Back in the day IO used to work for Atari repairing video/pinball machines at a video arcade in Madison (WI)

      I can say that MAME is exact in the way the arcade games run.

      Google MAME for more info.

  • mondobeyondo

    “Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around…”

    — Liza Minelli in “Cabaret” (I think. Don’t trust me on that, I’ve been wrong before)

  • System Of A Down – B.Y.O.B.

    (lyrics) “Why Do They Always Send The Poor?

    Breaking Into Fort Knox…

    Where the ************ were you?”




    The below sentences you wrote neatly explain everything. Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter and is pretty much one of the same themes that I have been hitting all along. Seems that I am winning you over. This is good. Now, the next step for your recovery is to get you to divest yourself of and totally disavow the war party altogether, both democrat and republican wings of it…………

    If you think that most Americans are going to sit down and critically assess the political positions of these candidates before deciding who to vote for you are being delusional.

    Most Americans do what the television tells them to do.

    And the candidates with the most money are able to buy more influence on television.

    What do you think our founding fathers would say if they could see us now?

  • mark

    You have joined with the main stream press to continue to take out of context Romney’s statement about the poor. He was refering to the fact that those that meet the Federal poverty level guidelines, which I might add is pretty high, have many government programs to sustain them. He expressed his concern for the middle class that do not fall into these safety net programs and are having a hard time making it and puting their owned earned food on the table. He was not concerned about the 1% since he stated that they were doing just fine and could take care of themselves. And furthermore he is not a socialist as Obama has shown in his choice of advisers and regulations that put more of the economy in control of the federal government. Is Romney what this country needs to make the changes to prosper in the long run? No, but the voters will not vote for someone that will cut the spending to the levels that we need to. None of them running will do what is needed except maybe Ron Paul and he doesn’t stand a chance of being elected. At least Romney has leadership experiance that is needed to run the executive branch. The rest of the crew have never run anything. Maybe I missed it, but I did not hear you discuss the power that the unions have when they donate the millions of dollars to the Democrats and in turn recieve huge sweetheart contracts for their members that work in the government class. In closing our Founding Fathers would say, I told you so. They gave warnings not to go where we have gone. Maybe a better question would be, How do we go back to the vision that the Founding Fathers had?




      Spit Romney not a socialist? Seriously, where do you people come from? Romneycare in Massachussetts, which was the older brother of Obamacare, which are both sons of Bushcare (2003 prescription drug benefit bill) is very much in the socialist tradition. But hey, what use do people in this asylum state have for facts, truth and logic? Government subsidy for Bain Capital anyone? Never mind. Clearly socialism for the rich, wealthy, and the powerful suits you just fine. For everyone else, crony capitalism that causes the economies of not just this asylum state, but the entire world to crash……………

  • Donald Wilson

    Doesn’t really matter electoral college elects the president.

    • oscar

      Surely it can’t be that only college grads can vote…

    • Terry Gregg

      Is the electoral college synonymous with Diebold? Computers can be programmed to produce the desired results no matter what the input is.


    justadad, T Bone,

    FROM: (25 Signs That America Is Rapidly Becoming More Like Nazi Germany)


    You are way off course as usual. But that is to be expected.

    1. The asylum states was not founded on god, but secular government based on a republican form of democracy

    2. An empire is an empire is an empire. Eventually, they all become far too corrupt and overextended and they eventually die.


    As to my solution, why that is rather simple and I have said this many times, the citizenry must become educated, make a complete social u-turn and disavow such idiocies as war, crime, death and destruction. They must return to an ethos of honesty above all else, hard work, friendly relations with their neighbors and foreign people’s alike, and they must come to the conclusion that an honest society makes for one than can survive and thrive long term. Outside of that, nothing can save amerika and its demise will be well deserved………………

    Reed & T Bone
    Michael has paralled the demise of the USA with the downfall of Germany. You two parallel the demise with the Soviet Union.
    There’s very little difference between the two. Fascism and Communism are similar and equal paths to destruction.
    Michael advocates a return to the Godly standards our nation was founded upon. Rather than bicker over your opinion of his opinion, give us your solution.

    • justadad

      1. Wrong
      Our founding fathers declared their independence in the name of “The Supreme Judge of the World” (God.)
      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence.)
      Reed, which part of CREATOR (GOD) do you not understand?
      If God did not endow us with rights, we would not need a Government to secure them. Our government was instituted to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty” (Constitution of the United States)
      Please stop trying to re-write the founding documents of our country. They we written by people with a firm belief that it was God who led them to revolt from Britain “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
      And that they needed to unite under a constitution to protect and secure the liberties edowed by their Creator.

      2. Wrong. It is not and empire yet, we still have the right to vote.

      As for solutions, I have never expected the solution to be birthed out the structure of government.
      I don’t understand how secular education produces the morality you are calling for. If you find a poor ignorant man stealing iron spikes from the railroad and educate him, he will end up stealing the whole railroad.
      Morality comes from agreeing with God as to what is right and what is wrong. To secure our liberties, our government (we the people) must return to the source of our liberties (God) and teach His truth. What you call a complete social overhaul, I would more correctly call repentance and return to God.
      Instead, we seem to have rejected the very basis of morailty by removing all mention of God (ACLU) and now are reaping the logical consequences.
      “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
      John Adams (2nd president of the USA)

      • TK


        Excellent points! You are absolutely correct!



        Not so. You are seriously incorrect. The Declaration of Independence, while very important, is not the Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution is. And it makes no mention of being founded on god or relgion. In fact, the first amendment makes the separation of church and state very clear. So clear that even ten year olds can understand it.

        The asylum states not an empire? What do you smoke behind closed doors when no one’s around? Well over 700 bases in over 130 countries around the world, invading countries without legal or moral justification of any kind, overthrowing governments at will and on its say so alone. You can play the ostrich role, but burying your head in the sand changes nothing. The truth still stands, and the asylum states of amerika is clearly an empire, by any logical, objective measure that you can use. But hey, what use do the imperial citizenry of amerika have for the truth? No matter what Karl Rove’s reality koolaid tastes like to you, it is never the less a false elixir……

        • gary2

          REED-do not try to reason with conservatives. Trying to figure out why they think so irrationally is an exercise in futility.

          Remember the Canadian study showing conservatives to not be as smart as the average person.

          Having read said study the more I read what conservatives say, or more accurately parrot from Rush/Fox news, the more I can see first hand that the study is correct and probably understates things regarding conservatives simply not being as smart as the average person.

          • justadad

            In His mercy, God reveals Himself to the simple. It is because He is not willing that any should perish that even children can understand such simple things as right and wrong, sin and forginess, justice and mercy.
            The preponderance of the less intelligent (according to your sources)among conservatives does not prove that conservatism is stupid but rather so easy to understand that even the simple can.

            On the other hand Liberalism hides behind word twisting and mis-representation and mental gymnastics. (“gay”, “choice”, “It depends upon the meaning of IS”)

            Even the word “liberal” has been co-opted and redefined. Conservatives are proven to be the most generous (liberal) to charity while on the other hand so called liberals are the most stingy.(except when it comes to taking other peoples money and spending it on vote-buying projects)
            If you are the measure of Liberalism, Gary2, then call me “fool”. It is a moniker I will gladly wear.1 Cor. 1:18-20

        • justadad

          Please read the 1st Amendment again. There is no “seperation of Church and State” mentioned. That phrase came from a letter by T. Jefferson to a concerned citizen to re-iterate the fact that Congress could not establish a federal religion (ie. Church of The United States).
          Freedom OF Religion is not the same as Freedom FROM religion.
          Read the quote from Adams again. His inteligence is attributed for the foundation of most (if not ALL) of the original colonies constitutions.
          Stop trying to seperate the Declaration of Independence from the U.S. Constitution.
          The phrase “sucure the Blessings of Liberty” is clearly in the US Constitution. It is that phrase that inextricably link the two thoughts:
          1. God (Creator) grants rights and liberties to His equaly created mankind.(D.of I.)
          2. Mankind must unite to protect and secure these “Blessings of Liberty.”(Constitution)
          I’m talking and have been talking about the basis, the foundation of understanding our founders believed. You cannot re-write history to eliminate these truths that our founders held to be “self evident.”
          As Adams would say “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

      • justadad

        I did not intend to plagiarize in using the example of the poor man stealing railroad spikes. At the time I could not remember who to attribute it to.
        To give proper credit:
        “A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”
        Theodore Roosevelt (another one of those U.S. presidents)
        Here’s another one by him.
        “A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.”

      • Ryan Jones

        since god does not exist, your argument is pretty much invalid.

        • justadad

          By definition you are an irrelevant witness because you speak from ignorance. You do not know if God exists nor can you definitively prove He does not exist (even Stephen Hawking admits this). Therefore your testimony, opinion, argument and belief in this matter has NO value.
          Please sit down and let true relevant witnesses stand up.
          To prove God exists is very simple and it can be done in any court of law. All that is needed is two or more witnesses to attest from 1st person experience.
          I, for one, have spoken to and have heard from God.(personal knowledge of His existance). Others on this blog can provide the same testimony. Our testimony is based on knowledge, your testimony is based on no knowledge (ignorance).
          The evidence is overwhelming but you are still free to ignore it.

    • oscar

      My aren’t you an arrogant moron

      • justadad

        Another definition for Reed can be found in Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1

  • xander cross

    How does it feel to know that you spent your earned money supporting Ron Paul, just so he could work to get Romney nominated! Oh, you did not know that Ron Paul is working with Mitt Romney that entire time. Wow.


      xander cross,

      It remains to be seen that Ron Paul is working for spit romney. What evidence do you have to support this statement? Has Ron Paul made any statements that he is closing shop on his campaign and casting his lot with spit romney? If not, then this rumor is about the same as prick santorum claiming that Obomber is a “secret muslim”, false and not to be taken seriously……….

    • Kelly B

      Dr. Paul definitely is not working with mittens..ron Paul has been saying the same consistent message for decades. So he’s definitely not working for romney now or ever. You dont have to like him, but at least respect the man to boldly declare his messageconsistently. No flip flopping there.

    • oscar

      Paul and Romney: Two putzes in a pod…

      We’re screwd again…

    • TK

      Dude, You ain’t fooling no one!

    • Think McFly

      I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I had to chime in here and say there’s no way he’s working to help Romney.

      It’s weird how so many people don’t have the basic common-sense thinking skills to tell if something is true or not!

      If you look at Ron Paul’s history, you can see how he has fought his entire political career FOR the Constititution and for an uncorrupted government, and one huge example of this is how he stood up against the TSA.

      I don’t care who anyone votes for, just vote based on facts, and the fact is there’s no way Ron Paul is working for Romney.

      Ron Paul wants to be President.

      • xander cross

        That does not mean anything when it comes to money. Yeah, he is defiently working with Romney and has been working with him for years.

  • jsmith

    This reminds of the fall of the Roman Empire. The politicians were buying the tittle of Caesar by bidding for the support of the legions. So this is how low our Republic has sunk.

  • BenjiK

    An entire financial collapse is the only thing that can revert our government back to the people.

  • nobody

    “Buying the Vote” seems innacurate terminology. “Buying the Politicians” seems more appropriate. Or maybe “Buying the TV Airtime.” Or even “Buying the Attack Ads.”

    I think we’re going to see a barrage of attack ads like we’ve never seen before. And we’ll know that the 1% still control nearly everything. Politics is no different. “Money Buys Access.”

    Please support Dylan Ratigan’s “Get Money Out” initiative.

  • Gary2

    this abomonation is brought to us by the conservative supreme court. Conservatives are the problem.

  • csadens

    Ron Paul 2012 :)

  • Virginia

    Many of the “sheepable” you talk about, no longer have TVs or a roof over their heads or food anymore. This whole campaign and their ads is like a nightmare/reality TV, totally irrelevant, totally out of touch. Millions are spent but you have to ask for what. No one is listening or watching any of it. Obama will be serving another 4 years no matter how much $ is given to super pacs. Money does not mean anything anymore.

  • Foster

    To those who claim the USA should “return” to God, here is what our Founding Fathers had to say about God, religion and government:

    “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

    “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

    “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”

    “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

    “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.”.

    “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England.”

    “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” -in Poor Richard’s Almanac

    “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”

    “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”

    “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

    “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

    IN SUM: All this talk from the religious right about “returning” this nation to God is a gross and obscene distortion of our Founding Fathers’ principles which completely ignores their well justified fears of mixing religion and government. The religious right is just trying to do what religions have always done – grab more power.

  • Foster


    In the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli between the USA and Tripoli, the US wrote: “… the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …” This Treaty, with this specific language, was UNANIMOUSLY ratified by the US Senate in 1797.

    MORE PROOF to dispel the false claim of the religious right that the US was founded as a Christian nation.

    If you are a TRUE conservative, you would believe what are Founding Fathers believed about the dangers of mixing religion and government.