- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Super PACs’ role in race falls short of expectations
Impact great in GOP primaries
Question of the Day
The blistering super-PAC war during the Republicans’ presidential primaries seemed to presage a long, nasty fight all the way through Election Day.
But with less than a month to go, the race has narrowed to two candidates both adept at raising their own money in the traditional way, and, with some wealthy donors preferring the anonymity of nonprofit groups, the super PACS have proven less than super in the general election.
By the time the dust settles, barring a dramatic change in the final weeks, the chief effect of the super PACs on this election may have been as a means for Republicans to attack each other.
In the Republican primaries, the super PAC Winning Our Future, funded by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to back candidate Newt Gingrich, spent $20 million relentlessly attacking Mitt Romney. While ultimately unsuccessful, the attacks have provided ammunition which Democrats have been quick to exploit.
“This money has hurt Republicans as much as helped them, and I don’t think there’s anything more illustrative of that than what Winning Our Future did in turning Bain Capital into a weapon against Romney, when turning around businesses was supposed to be one of his biggest assets,” said Bill Allison, an analyst on money in politics at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.
Thanks to the early GOP primary battles, the tally as of last week was lopsided: $162 million had been spent on damaging Republicans, compared to $115 million to attack Democrats, according to an analysis by The Washington Times.
A massive super PAC advantage that Mr. Romney was expected to have, thanks to his support in the financial industry, never materialized, with Priorities USA, the major pro-Obama super PAC actually levying slightly more attacks on Mr. Romney than Restore Our Future has on President Obama.
Restore Our Future, founded by Romney aides in 2010, ran only $4 million in ads in September — the same amount it ran in December, nearly a full year before the general election. In fact, even as Mr. Romney’s campaign grew dramatically, Restore Our Future spent the same amount in the four months ending in April, when Mr. Romney effectively clinched the nomination, as it has in the four months since. And it raised only $7 million in August, the last month for which totals are available — the least it had raised in three months.
Despite better numbers for September October, Restore Our Future is “not going to be the 10,000-pound gorilla in the room,” one Republican strategist said.
At the same time, Priorities USA, the super PAC backing Mr. Obama, has stepped up its activities. In August, it raised $10 million.
“Democrats have been slow to embrace super PACs because many of them are ideologically opposed to them,” said Darrell M. West, a political analyst with the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. But Democrats have decided to embrace them “because they don’t want to be at a competitive disadvantage to Republicans.”
As for super PACs, even in lower-tier races, their money has been a tool for internecine Republican warfare.
In Senate races, $39 million in super PAC ads have been run against Republicans, versus $15 million that backed a Republican or attacked a Democrat.
Much of that was spent in Texas’s bitter GOP Senate primary, where the Texas Conservatives Fund spent $6 million attacking Ted Cruz, the eventual nominee, and the Club for Growth Action Fund spent $5 million attacking Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who lost the race.
In the House, $21 million has been spent opposing Republicans, while only two-thirds that much was spent attacking Democrats or defending GOP candidates.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Luke Rosiak is a projects reporter on The Washington Times’ investigative team. He formerly covered lobbying and campaign finance for two watchdog groups as well as transportation for The Washington Post. Luke can be reached at email@example.com.
- Md. couple indicted in scheme to cheat SBA on minority contracts
- As federal agencies trim fat, contracts feed billions in profits to 59 companies
- Conflict of interest in $4 billion government minority program
- $4 billion program for disadvantaged businesses lacks oversight
- Maryland's minority-contracting program gets failing grade on 'graduation'
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- DCCC raising money on suggestion Obama impeachment is 'imminent'
- U.S. evacuates embassy in Libya amid violent clashes between militias
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- CANNON: With Russia, different airline crash, same results
- 3 rockets hit Israel as Hamas rejects Gaza truce
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq