# GOP superPACs plan to spend $1 billion on electons this year **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 8, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451 "2012-06-08T01:37:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/21 "2012-06-08T13:47:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You really don’t believe in any possibility of GOP success without the money-advantage? I do. I base that on the fact that the GOP has an actual grassroots base. Still waiting on that cite. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/22 "2012-06-08T13:59:39Z")
I agree there’s little that can be done about it at this point. IMO candidates for federal office are in danger of becoming little more than surrogates for moneyed interests. The GOP primary is an obvious example of how the RNC is becoming less important in the process. I’d normally say that’s a good thing for democracy–if real democracy was taking its place rather than billionaire political gadflies. Soon, businesses will just de facto “own” congressional seats as the two sides carve up the market (like in business, it’s much cheaper to collude than compete). Give the electorate a good show and faux Coke/Pepsi style choices in “candidates” who are better described as “employees”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/23 "2012-06-08T14:00:40Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Still waiting on that cite. You’ll have to wait for a couple more SCOTUS appointments. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/24 "2012-06-08T14:00:45Z")
**BrainGlutton** , as a general reminder: when you start a thread, please add something to it beyond a link and a lengthy quote. We don’t require that OPs pose a question or post a detailed argument, but more original content is strongly encouraged. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/25 "2012-06-08T14:02:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , as a general reminder: when you start a thread, please add something to it beyond a link and a lengthy quote. We don’t require that OPs pose a question or post a detailed argument, but more original content is strongly encouraged. Acknowledged and noted. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/26 "2012-06-08T14:07:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You really don’t believe in any possibility of GOP success without the money-advantage? Of course he doesn’t. He’s also in favour of voter suppression. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/27 "2012-06-08T14:11:49Z")
> [@Yask](#): > > The SCOTUS makes laws all the time, as it should. Basic civics 101; junior high, even. There is a substantial difference between case law and statuary law, but both have the power of law. > > Before you go spouting talking points and asking rhetorical questions, get a clue about how the government works. Which body of government wrote the campaign fianance laws? That would be Congress. Who rewrote the campaign fianance laws? That would again be Congress. Who is known to pass bills into law without actually reading them? Again, Congress. The SCOTUS didn’t overturn all campaign fianance laws. The SCOTUS ruled that several sections of the law that Congress wrote were unConstitutional. Congress can pass new campaign fianance laws at any time. Contact your Senators and Congressman and demand new, “constitutionally-correct”, campaign fianance laws. You can also contact the Majority leaders of both Houses of Congress and demand that the new bill be allowed to be voted on by Congress. Blaming the SCOTUS for an unConstitutionally written bill is simply an act of desperation. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/28 "2012-06-08T14:21:54Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > **You must have a really low opinion of Congress if you think that they are so stupid** > as to write an obviously unconstitutional law. As if you can simply look up the relevant Constitutionality in a book and the Supreme Court is simply applying a very easy algorithm to their law. Like I said before, the fact that many SC decisions are far from unanimous means that the court’s opinion on the constitutionality of any given law is often not obvious. > > Furthermore, laws are ruled on partly on their results. It’s not as if Congress could write any sort of campaign finance reform they wanted if only they could find the Magic Words. Some portions may be impossible given the current makeup of the Court, which would rule against the provisions no matter how they are worded. So in that case, it _is_ the Court’s fault. What is Congresses current approval rating? 8%? EVERYONE has a really low opinion of Congress. And YES, you can simply look up the relevant Constitutionality in a book. It’s called the Constitution, BoR, and previous SCOTUS rulings. Congress is mostly comprised of lawyers. All members of Congress have access to Constitutional lawyers. If Congress did it’s job of writing bills properly, the SCOTUS wouldn’t have to correct their errors. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/29 "2012-06-08T14:25:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You’ll have to wait for a couple more SCOTUS appointments. So you admit that under current law, there is a constitutional right for Super PACS to spend as much as they wish on political advertising? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/30 "2012-06-08T14:40:29Z")
Uh-oh, he’s got you there! ADMIT IT! ADMIT IT! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/31 "2012-06-08T14:42:15Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So you admit that under current law, there is a constitutional right for Super PACS to spend as much as they wish on political advertising? [As already noted.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653227) ---
**Author:** ![Yask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Yask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yask)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/32 "2012-06-08T16:16:22Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Which body of government wrote the campaign fianance laws? That would be Congress. Who rewrote the campaign fianance laws? That would again be Congress. Who is known to pass bills into law without actually reading them? Again, Congress. > > The SCOTUS didn’t overturn all campaign fianance laws. The SCOTUS ruled that several sections of the law that Congress wrote were unConstitutional. Congress can pass new campaign fianance laws at any time. > > Contact your Senators and Congressman and demand new, “constitutionally-correct”, campaign fianance laws. You can also contact the Majority leaders of both Houses of Congress and demand that the new bill be allowed to be voted on by Congress. > > Blaming the SCOTUS for an unConstitutionally written bill is simply an act of desperation. No, really, this is junior high civics here. Turn off Fox for just a moment, take a breath of air, and collect your thoughts. No one said congress couldn’t make laws. No one said that the amendment process doesn’t exist. The desperation you seem to see is actually exasperation at the dismal levels of awareness of the basics and sadness at the gullibility of some people to buy the party line. You keep chanting that scotus doesn’t make laws. You say they only pass on the constitutionality of a law. Guess what, sunshine? That power comes from … wait for it … a judge-made law. OMG WTF PDQ! Say it isn’t so! Yes, yes it is. Judges make law all the time. No, no one is suggesting (no one without a similar lack of understanding of how our government works) that they write a statute out of whole cloth and mail it to congress. CU was bad law, and there are plenty of vehicles for bringing its holding before the court–which should overturn it. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/33 "2012-06-08T16:36:35Z")
The NY Times has an interesting article on campaign spending which discusses the other end of the problem: Not only is more money being spent than evin previous elections, because of the comparative lack of true swing states [it’s also being spent in fewer places](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/9-swing-states-are-main-focus-of-ad-blitz.html?_r=2&hp): > [@](#): > > With so many resources focused on persuading an ever-shrinking pool of swing voters like those here in Nevada, the 2012 election is likely to go down in history as the one in which the most money was spent reaching the fewest people. > > Much of the heaviest spending has not been in big cities with large and expensive media markets, but in small and medium-size metropolitan areas in states with little individual weight in the Electoral College: Cedar Rapids and Des Moines in Iowa (6 votes); Colorado Springs and Grand Junction in Colorado (9 votes); Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia (13 votes). Since the beginning of April, four-fifths of the ads that favored or opposed a presidential candidate have been in television markets of modest size. The article goes on to note that Super PACs spent a combined $5 million just in Las Vegas ad-buys during the past eight weeks. Extrapolate that to another 24 weeks, and consider that Nevada in total has 1.4 million registered voters. At this point, why not just have each candidate hand out $10 bills to prospective swing voters? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/34 "2012-06-08T16:59:03Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Man, Republicans are stupid to be wasting that much money. After all, everyone knows that money doesn’t influence elections at all. Well, now you’ve let the cat out of the bag, haven’t you? Couldn’t just shut up about it, oh, no… ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/35 "2012-06-08T17:04:29Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > At this point, why not just have each candidate hand out $10 bills to prospective swing voters? Cuz that would be illegal. But definitely efficient. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/36 "2012-06-08T17:20:22Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Cuz that would be illegal. But definitely efficient. But wait. If all money equals speech, and since you can’t have _any_ restrictions on speech (except for a hypothetical yelling fire in a crowded theatre, but that’s only a footnote and doesn’t count anyway), then clearly direct donations to people or candidates should be allowable! YOU CAN’T STOP THE SIGNAL! ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/37 "2012-06-08T17:28:54Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > But wait. If all money equals speech Money does not equal speech. That’s a strawman that has been invented by people who are opposed to the first amendment. Speech equals speech. Often (almost always, except in cases of expressing yourself vocally in the street, and even then you’d probably want to BUY yourself a loudspeaker) you need to spend money in order to express yourself. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/38 "2012-06-08T17:33:09Z")
> [@Yask](#): > > Yes, yes it is. Judges make law all the time. No, no one is suggesting (no one without a similar lack of understanding of how our government works) that they write a statute out of whole cloth and mail it to congress. CU was bad law, and there are plenty of vehicles for bringing its holding before the court–which should overturn it. It’s worth noting that CU overruled all of the SCOTUS’ 1990 decision in [Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce) and part of their 2003 ruling in [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission). The second in fact had directly upheld McCain-Feingold, so in 2003 the SCOTUS thought it was constitutional. By 2010, they didn’t. I wonder what changed their minds… ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/39 "2012-06-08T19:14:01Z")
Where were you guys last time around when Obama out-spent McCain? Did Obama do some terrible thing bu doing that? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451/40 "2012-06-08T19:18:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Where were you guys last time around when Obama out-spent McCain? Did Obama do some terrible thing bu doing that? This argument is of course, nonsense. Obama outspent McCain under the old, pre Citizens United rules. This means that individuals and corporations were limited in what they could spend on him. Now, one billionaire can decide to give as much money as a hundred million voters. It used to be that more money was got by more contributors (and bundlers and so on). Now, instead of needing many people to get more money, all you need is one. So, Rand, now that you know your argument is silly, please don’t use it again, okay? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gop-superpacs-plan-to-spend-1-billion-on-electons-this-year/624451.md?page=3)