"Super PACs fuel GOP attack ads; Eventual nominee could pay a price" by Brian C. Mooney | Globe Staff, February 02, 2012
In the first presidential election since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates of big-dollar campaign financing, new so-called super PACs have poured tens of millions of dollars into the Republican campaign, financing negative ads that have damaged the public’s view of the leading candidates.
It didn't take TV ads to do that.
The super PACs have special clout because, unlike candidates’ campaigns, they can collect donations of any size. The super PACs have spent $40 million thus far to support their respective candidates, even as they are forbidden from coordinating with them.
The arrival of the super PACS has resulted in a profound change in the nominating process, as candidates disclaim responsibility for the super PACS’ negative advertising. And because the GOP is the party with a contested primary race this year, its eventual nominee may pay a price for the super-PAC-fueled negative ads.
I resent the metaphor and analogy because real live radiation is continuing to spew from Japan and who knows where else. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Politics is the art of waging war.
Every candidate has a related super PAC, an independent but closely allied organization that can collect unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, and labor unions. As the campaigns move from state to state, so do the super PACs, which revealed donors and their contributions for the second half of 2011 Tuesday....
Outside groups attempting to influence elections are nothing new. They existed before the Supreme Court ruling two years ago that lifted limits on contributions and the timing and content of electioneering messages. But they were prevalent in the general election, not the nominating phase.
The presence of super PACs has created a Jekyll-and-Hyde dynamic....
The fund-raising disparity highlights another phenomenon in the super PAC era. Big checks - or the prospect of them - from single donors can help under-funded campaigns hang on despite defeats that in the past could be knockouts.
Rick Santorum, the Iowa winner but a third- and fourth-place finisher in three later states, has soldiered on despite raising only about $2.2 million through Dec. 31. He has said he raised about $4.5 million in the month since, but an allied super PAC, Red White and Blue Fund, has spent about $2 million to date to keep him afloat....
Santorum has done the most with the least of any of the surviving candidates. Rick Perry ($20.1 million), Jon Huntsman ($5.9 million), and Michele Bachmann ($9.3 million) all raised significantly more than Santorum before dropping out last month, and Perry and Huntsman had support from super PACs that outspent the one backing Santorum. In the competition to outlast the other as a conservative alternate to Romney, Santorum’s campaign overhead is a fraction of Gingrich’s.
Santorum and Ron Paul basically passed on Florida, an expensive winner-take-all state, and, like Gingrich, hope to benefit from a stretch with lower-cost caucus states in advance of Arizona and Michigan and Super Tuesday on March 6.
Paul raised $26 million through Dec. 31 and has been helped by Endorse Liberty, a super PAC, funded in large part by PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, who contributed $900,000, according to an FEC report filed Tuesday. The super PAC has spent about $3.3 million to promote Paul, mostly for Internet ads.
He's the only guy who gives us a chance at stopping the insanity -- although the way things are going to now it may already be too late.
--more--"
