I was watching a show on MSNBC

[mary195149]

yesterday evening, but can't remember which show that was talking about finance campaigning, where it costs more for Romney to buy ads than it does for Obama.
Does anyone know which show this was on?

[CanisCrocinus]

1. Rachel Maddow

last night. Interesting report!

[Raven]

2. I always learn something from her show. n/t

[PatSeg]

3. Actually

I think it was comparing the cost of advertising for Super Pacs versus the cost to the actual candidates. Huge difference.

[chillfactor]

4. Rachel's show and Lawrence mentioned it again later

the ad differences:

if a super pac pays for an ad...it costs more
if an ad is paid for by donation money it costs less

the President has more donation money than romney does so the major share of the President's ads cost less

[WCGreen]

6. Media outlets are required to charge the lowest competitive rate

for candidates.

However, the Romney campaign had withdrawn their early purchase and then had to go back in which is more expensive.

It's been a while since I purchased air time for a candidate, but you have to pay for it up front and you have to lock it in. If you pull back and then go back in, you are charged the commercial rate.

[Spazito]

5. It was about the SuperPacs involved with both campaigns...

Direct campaign purchase of ad time, regardless of whether it is the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign, get a lower ad rate than the SuperPacs. The Obama campaign has more campaign money while Romney seems to have counted on the SuperPacs so ads could cost them much more than the direct campaign purchases done by the Obama campaign.

Just to be clear, it is NOT that Obama gets better rates than Romney, both campaigns get the same rate if purchased by campaign money. Both sides' SuperPacs get the higher rate.