It's Not Easy Being a Super PAC
ELSPETH REEVE 9:53 AM ET
It's official: politicians are better at spending rich people's money than rich people are at spending their own money on politics. The ads aired by super PACs don't "appear to have significantly influenced voter opinion in key states in the presidential contest or in top congressional races," The Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. reports Monday. "The wide range of messages from the PACs may have confused voters, and viewers may be skeptical of ads backed by little-known groups that are unconnected to a candidate," King says, plus viewers can skip ads easier. Tracking all the dumb spending in the race so far, BuzzFeed's Ben Smith and Ruby Cramer write, "At times, the messages haven’t just been scattered, but have actually been flatly contradictory." The American Future Fund was trying to tie President Obama to Wall Street while Mitt Romney was saying Obama was hostile to business.
Despite concern earlier this year that super PACs would allow a handful of mega-rich donors to have an enormous influence on the campaign, it turns out these rich guys are not very good at buying elections. Let's take a look at their track record so far:
Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity have spent $18 million trying to make Pennsylvania and Michigan competitive for Romney. Obama leads Romney in both states by an average of 8 percentage points.
Conservative super PACs spent $23 million to make North Carolina impossible for Obama to win again, King reports. Romney is leading that stage by an average of 1.8 percentage points.
Read More:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/super-pacs-are-struggling-spend-their-cash-wisely/57180/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I will try to compose myself.
and a "Communist." They just can't keep their message straight.
Proving once again, that like style and class, money cannot buy you common sense, either.
