Posted on 04/09/2015 6:33:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz backers have ushered in a new era for super PACs.
Supporters of the Texas Republican presidential candidate made a bombshell announcement this week — that a network of four affiliated super PACs will have raised an eye-popping $31 million by the end of the week. The disclosure, coming within weeks of Cruz launching his campaign for president, has sent deep ripples through the political fundraising world.
The idea of not one, but multiple, affiliated super PACs ostensibly working together to haul in donations for the same presidential candidate is unprecedented, campaign finance experts say.
Veteran fundraisers point out that the strategy could give already powerful donors never-before-seen levels of influence — and choice — over how their dollars are spent to help a presidential candidate. The unique setup is aimed at giving mega donors "influence and control over the expenditures" they are funding, explained Dathan Voelter, an Austin-based attorney and treasurer to three of the four super PACs.
As political strategists and campaign finance experts scramble to assess just what this all means for the future of political fundraising, one thing seems clear: Wealthy donors are most certainly about to get more powerful -- not less.
"My bet is that it all has to do with the donors -- donors having different views of what the super PAC should do," said Cleta Mitchell, a political law attorney at Foley & Lardner, who summed up the strategy as "very unusual."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I like rich. I like them spending their capital to expand an economy. I don’t like them investing in politicians so they control our government
I don’t like crony capitalism either type of rich where oligarchs use pocket change to buy tax loop holes and special deals using taxpayer money. They use their owned politicians to get access to taxpayer money to help build their facilities or stadiums or solar plants or bail out Wall St when they are incompetent.
I hope that Ted Cruz sets an example of good ethics that represents the citizenry.
But, but... they told us only Obama was a genius and that Hillary was smart.
What is this Ted-guy doin’ to the goal posts? YIPPEEE!!
I believe that is correct, for the first million. But when you rock in with $31 million in 8 days, you seeing PACS coming together in a stunning way, as this story is reporting. This is not grass roots.
I think Ted’s lovely wife may have had conservative friends as benefactors, at Goldman Sachs. Ted and Mike Lee have been up to something ever since they started their own PAC, the Senate Conservative Fund, and had a chance to gain a lot of ground with some big donors is almost certain. My bet anyway.
Yep - and she bemoans that "wealthy donors become even more powerful". I guess she doesn't realize how many really big money people buy their own pet Democrats. They always insert keywords to try to smear the good guys.
After his smack-down of the "yellow journalist fact checkers deciding to "fact check" his jokes, I'm adding $25 to my next donation....
That was for his regular fundraising which is about $5MM. The $31MM is from SuperPacs formed for him.
You were the one who said the rich shouldn’t be able to talk as loud in the political arena as they do in the rest of their lives, so I don’t think you like them as much as you think you do.
You seem to just want to take advantage of them when it suits you, living off of their wealth, but not letting them talk.
You also didn’t define who is rich, which is a critical issue if you want to convince me and others to help you muzzle them.
Do you think more money in politics has made the USA a better freerer, country and given us more competent less corrupt leaders? The biggest beneficiaries are the MSM and media moguls, and of course they give us only the unvarnished un-manipulated truth ;-)
The answer is generally yes, but that isn’t the critical question.
This is a better question; Which poses a bigger danger to our freedom, the free speech we now have, or speech controlled by government officials?
“This is a better question; Which poses a bigger danger to our freedom, the free speech we now have, or speech controlled by government officials?”
Our speech is now controlled by the unseen unelected masters of political correctness, represented by “elites” who own the media, etc., and supported by wimp politicians. The PCPolice have scared our politicians and Americans into submission.
Control of the media controls politics. The use of campaign finance dollars is what makes those who control the media even richer. Most of those billions goes to them.
Free speech where we the people can criticize and say at will what we think about anything that impacts the USA will be deemed wrong headed unless it meets their parameters. Unless we get some judges and politicians that understand that PC is a muzzle used to corral the mind and thoughts of the people in the USA, just as it was used by the Communist tyrants to gain power in Soviet Union.
If you think pouring money into the MSM gives us freedom of speech you might want to reconsider.
I would like you to hazard a wild guess; who are these unseen masters controlling what you are saying and posting?
I don’t have a clue except that many vote D, but we don’t get to vote for them.
Would you agree that the media is a primary sponsor of the political correctness agenda? Would you agree that PC is ultimately intended to muzzle and undermine the First Amendment, just as hate crime laws undermine Equal protection under the law and to insure we are not all equal.. The end result is national divide instead of unity.
Would you also agree that of the billions that go into campaign money that a significant portion feeds the MSM?
I asked who were the unseen forces controlling YOUR voice?
We have freedom of speech in the USA, at least as free as it can be. I would wager that if you carefully analyzed your own speech you would find that it is controlled by others also. That doesn’t make it bad, it is just how civilized people behave.
As to the rest of your post, I don’t disagree with any of it.
What I have said is that the alternative is far, far worse, as the 70 year USSR experiment illustrated clearly.
“What I have said is that the alternative is far, far worse, as the 70 year USSR experiment illustrated clearly.”
There is nothing more intrusive than those who would take away our ability to speak candidly and what is on our mind, about politics, society, religion, groups of people, or national policies, which is what freedom of speech exemplifies. Freedom of Speech means others get the right to say what some do not want to hear. The PC muzzle exemplifies control and that is what the media wants, which is a one-way megaphone.
Political Correctness was first initiated in the USSR by the Communist Bolsheviks as a means to keep the average citizenry contained and muzzled and a means of stifling criticism of their new government. They wanted all criticism to appear unfair and wrong headed, just like the media does in the USA.
Internet Search: “Political correctness USSR” and pick your own links. It becomes a diabolical means to stifle debate. Giving the media billions in political handouts through campaign money only makes them more powerful. For that reason you will never hear any segment of the MSM vehemently oppose Citizens United.
It was nice discussing this in depth with you, and I think we are on the same page on most issues. We may not agree on all but we do on most. Never forget that the media uses both the left and right to advance their own profits and bottom line agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.