33
   

The Winding Road To The Republican Nomination For President

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 09:28 am
@rosborne979,
Much like charitable contributions, a good deal of the money which is donated to Super PACs goes to "administrative costs," which means salaries and perquisites of staff members, as well as fees for law dogs, researchers, media consultants, etc., etc. Whether or not it is Super PACs, a good deal of the money does go to media outlets for print, broadcast and online advertising. Thirty second television spots can really eat up cash fast, especially if you're attempting to reach your target audience at dinner time, and through local and or national news broadcasts. After administrative costs are deducted, the biggest amount of money, where being spent by the political action committees or the candidates campaign itself, goes for television advertising.

EDIT: I forgot to respond to a suggestion of yours. While undoubtedly media outlets contribute to campaigns and political action committees, i doubt that it accounts for very much of the total. A lot of the big bucks, especially that contributed to political action committees, comes from corporate and organizational sources (NRA, AARP--organizations with political agendae). The corporate sources are likely to be playing both sides of the fence--contributing to both the Repulicans and the Democrats. In time honored corporate fashion, they hedge their bets. I am appalled and disgusted that there are no limits on Super PACs, but given that there aren't, i certainly can't blame corporations for spreading their influence money.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 09:46 am
@Setanta,
Interesting.

Is there any way to account for what percentage of the money that is given, actually finds its way back to the original pocket by way of the donors actually owning many of the mechanisms used by the PAC's to push a candidate?

What I'm really wondering here is, if it's possible that a few of the elite spenders could ever find a way to effectively spend nothing (or very little) and still affect the political process, merely by pumping cash into the system and then arranging for it to flow back to them by virtue of ownership of the "pieces of the system".

It's bad enough that wealthy corporate donors have such control over political outcomes, but at least they are having to pay something for what they want. But if they find a way to get their money back and still have a similar effect, then the whole process would be just that much more sickening to behold.

Maybe I don't really want to know the answer to this Wink
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 10:39 am
Gingrich campaign warned 2nd time for financial dealings

Quote:
Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign has received a second warning from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for widespread financial irregularities, saying the campaign must disclose why nearly $1 million was paid to the candidate, staff and a small group of fundraising consultants for questionable reimbursements.

But hours after the FEC letter on its 2011 finances became public, the campaign filed a report for a newer time period, January, that indicated that the problems have become far worse.

The campaign transferred Mr. Gingrich $88,000 last month for unspecified "travel" expenses, a pace far higher than he paid himself over the course of 2011, a federal report filed Monday showed. It was part of $220,000 in mystery money that month that went to people close to Mr. Gingrich on top of their salaries, raising the issue of potential self-dealing.

The FEC warning letter was issued the day The Washington Times documented the suspect reimbursements.

Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond had told The Times that the payments were a result of Mr. Gingrich footing bills early in the campaign and getting reimbursed because no bank would give the campaign a credit card. He had said the campaign was finally able to obtain a credit card late last year, so there would be no reason for the pattern to continue in 2012.

The January payments came in two checks over four days at the end of the month. He would not explain the discrepancy this week.

The FEC's objections are not to the idea of a candidate and staff fronting costs and getting reimbursed, but because the technique has caused a huge segment of the campaign's expenditures to become a black box. Rule books say every restaurant, vendor, hotel or other company that receives more than $200 in donated funds must be disclosed, even if a billing conduit is used.

A separate disclosure Monday showed that Becky Burkett, a former top official of a nonprofit Mr. Gingrich headed who now runs a pro-Gingrich super PAC called Winning Our Future, paid herself $220,000 in donated money last month — making more in 20 days than any other super PAC official has made in total since the groups exploded onto the scene, a review by The Times showed.

Super PAC spokesman Rick Tyler said the payments compensated her for November, December and part of January. The fund brought in its first donation Dec. 7. Although that rate puts the Gingrich confidante on pace for an annual salary in the millions, Mr. Tyler noted that political work isn't assured.

"In this business, we all could be out of a job next — you just don't know," he said. "People make more knowing that this could be a short-term contract."


(more at the source)


0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 05:49 pm
Good evening to you all. It has been a bit of a quiet day on the Republican campaign trail after the debate is AZ last night. It was the 20th debate and the candidates, the media, the public and even the political junkies are getting weary of them. We may not see any more debates.
I see that our little A2K thread got a lot of views overnight and into today. We went from 900 at 11 pm last night to almost 1100 now.
Arizona and Michigan are up next Tuesday (2/28). I think the former will end up going for Romney, partially because of the numbers of Mormons.
Michigan is the one to watch, of course. The polls have Santorum ahead but he isn't covering the MOE. Gingrich has spent little time or money there and he polls in high single digits, which is well behind Romney and Santorum. His strategy, I think, is to see Romney lose which would freak out (to use a technical phrase) the Republican establishment.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 05:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
We may not see any more debates.
Woot!! (Not that I watched any of them lol). I'm always more interested in the House & Senate races in a given election year -- will you be starting a thread similar to the one you did for the 2010 election??
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:02 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Interesting.

.......... if it's possible that a few of the elite spenders could ever find a way to effectively spend nothing (or very little) and still affect the political process, merely by pumping cash into the system and then arranging for it to flow back to them by virtue of ownership of the "pieces of the system".

Maybe I don't really want to know the answer to this Wink


Probably you don't want to know but you asked, so: sure there's a way. Remember the $1 trillion (started at $787 bn, then got extensions) "stimulus"? The money went to states to pay unionized professions (teachers etc), then the unions in turn made donations to the Democratic Party.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:20 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Will you be starting a thread similar to the one you did for the 2010 election??

What, do you think I don't have a life?
To tell you the truth, I did wander around recently looking at the House and Senate. All 435 seats in the former will be voted on and redistricting could make some of them interesting. One third of the Senate seats will be voted on.
I have not gotten very heavily into races for congress yet.
Would you be willing to run a thread on all of that?
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 06:50 pm
@realjohnboy,
No, that's why I asked if you were planning to do it Smile

You're much better at it and know your way around politics way more than I do.

I'll keep an eye out, just in case Razz
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 07:14 pm
@Irishk,
When and if I do wade into that, it will not be on this thread. It will be on a new one or on the Obama thread. This thread is about the Repub race for the nomination, of course.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 07:23 pm
@realjohnboy,
Thanks, rjb.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 07:13 am
@High Seas,
Try not to trash the thread with your partisan hysterria--that's how RJB's last thread was killed.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 07:14 am
@High Seas,
So no money went to bail out the banks then? Bankers make political donations too.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 07:16 am
PLEASE . . . can we stick to the topic? There's already another thread you clowns can go **** up.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 09:42 am
Romney is pulling ahead in Michigan in today's released polling.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 11:00 am
More evidence of Romney's weakness/ the enthusiasm gap, as compared to previous nominees:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/historic-approval-final.png

Look how much worse he is than John Kerry, even.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 12:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The name Jeb Bush keeps popping up.


former conservative Jeb Bush?

Quote:

“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed, but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that’s kind of where we are,” said Mr. Bush according to Fox News.



http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/2012/02/24/jeb-bush-slams-republican-candidates-downplays-late-entry/
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 04:10 pm
The Romney staff is well regarded for running an effective campaign. Today he made an "important" economic address as Ford Field in Michigan. It was set up by the Economic Club of Detroit. The stadium seats something like 70,000 people. The visual of about 1,200 people occupying the 1,500 folding chairs was not good.
The crowd was not at all vocal in the cavernous stadium.
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 04:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
Oops...like a cave in there!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120224_romney_stadium.photoblog600.jpg
sozobe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 04:51 pm
@realjohnboy,
There have actually been several of those kinds of situations -- sorry I don't remember what they were. But at several points during this campaign I've thought "wait, I thought Romney's campaign was supposed to be all efficient and stuff?" as they do something that's really NOT.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:03 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Oops...like a cave in there!
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/120224_romney_stadium.photoblog600.jpg


Depends on who is giving the speech, of course:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ObamaHartfordrally2-081.jpg

Obama in the same stadium 4 years ago.

Think there's an enthusiasm gap for Romney??

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 04:14:34