Super PAC donors Sheldon Adelson, Peter Thiel, Foster Friess and Jeffrey Katzenberg.
/ CBS/Getty ImagesUpdated with February's super PAC financial reports.
To understand just how important so-called "super PACs" have become, consider this: The super PAC backing Newt Gingrich raised more than $5 million more in January than what was raised by Gingrich's own campaign.
The fact that super PACs are getting bigger than the campaigns they're there to support is a big deal - particularly when the super PACs are funded in large part by one or two large donors. In Gingrich's case, that donor is Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who (along with his wife) gave Gingrich's super PAC $10 million of the $11 million it raised in January.
Super PAC donors by the numbers
Adelson's largess powered advertising on Gingrich's behalf in key states and allowed the candidate to focus his own resources on the nuts and bolts of campaigning. It's an open question whether Gingrich would still be in the race had Adelson not opened his checkbook.
Gingrich is not alone: Mitt Romney's campaign ended January with less than $8 million in cash on hand. The super PAC backing him has $16.3 million, according to FEC reports.
In the super PAC age, there are no limits on how much a well-heeled individual can spend to get a candidate elected (or defeated). Click through to meet some of the notable people who are spending big to influence elections past and future - a group that includes at least 21 billionaires - in order of how much they've given in this campaign cycle.
I propose each candidate should be allowed to spend per election no more than the office itself pays in 1 year's salary.
That money can come from family, friends, self, or individual voters. Corporations cannot vote so they cannot contribute. But neither can outsiders to our nation, like Soros.
Supporters of a candidate can give whatever amount they want but the contributions will go to a task force at the government accountability office to be administered. Anything in excess of the annual salary limit will go to pay down our nation's debt. The candidate never sees the excess.
ALL media venues will be required to give FREE equal time to EACH candidate. That's TV, Newspapers, radios...websites with news or political views printed...all of them MUST give the same time, in equitable time slots (i.e. each candidate gets the same night of the week/timeframe, in turn, the order to be determined by a random drawing), free of charge, to each candidate. This will lessen the cost of the campaign.
When it's said and done, we will get a better selection of candidates because more people could afford to run. The time/space limits for media would cut down on time wasted on negative campaigning and focus more on what the candidate can do for us. We'd have less interference from conglomerates and outside interests. Our debt would go down or if not, politicians would spend less time fund-raising because there's no benefit to raising in excess of the allowed amount. We'd get to see first hand how well candidates can manage their budgets. We might even get our democracy back!
You are making yourself look foolish, he was #7.
Soros is on page 8. Katzenburg(?) is on page 7. They were both there last night when I read it before there were any comments posted. I wonder how you missed them in your rush to judgment.
And since you apparently didn't read it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-503544_162-57383227-503544/meet-the-biggest-donors-of-the-2012-campaign/?pageNum=7&tag=next
"Soros was also one of the largest donors to either party in the 2008 election, giving $5 million to help President Obama's campaign. Yet he appears poised to sit this election out: The New Yorker reports this week the odds of Soros giving to a pro-Obama super PAC are no more than 10 percent, in part because he is concerned about the influence of shadowy money in politics that super PACs represent."
Soros is on page 8. Katzenburg(?) is on page 7. They were both there last night when I read it before there were any comments posted. I wonder how you missed them in your rush to judgment.
And since you apparently didn't read it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-503544_162-57383227-503544/meet-the-biggest-donors-of-the-2012-campaign/?pageNum=7&tag=next
"Soros was also one of the largest donors to either party in the 2008 election, giving $5 million to help President Obama's campaign. Yet he appears poised to sit this election out: The New Yorker reports this week the odds of Soros giving to a pro-Obama super PAC are no more than 10 percent, in part because he is concerned about the influence of shadowy money in politics that super PACs represent."