Virtually all of today's Sunday morning news shows, while covering recent developments and polls in Iowa, made note of the tremendous amount of negative campaign advertising being funded by various "super PAC's".

For the most part these super PAC's are private organizations who are not required to reveal the source of their funding. The law enabling them prohibits political candidates from being involved in their fund-raising or management, but it's well known that at least one of the super PAC's is run by former staffers of one of the current presidential candidates. And it's been that super PAC that has funded much of the negative campaign ads that have lead to the fall of candidates such as Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and most recently Newt Gingrich. Clearly, Mitt Romney has been the beneficiary of the work of these super PAC's. But where's the money coming from? And why?

It's already known that President Obama has several super PAC's that will be funding his campaign advertising once his Republican opponent is chosen. But in his case, it's also known that his super PAC's are already funded to the tune of almost $1 billion, a several times multiple of the amount available to any of the Republican candidates.

Once the campaign begins in earnest, get ready for more negative advertising than you've ever seen or can imagine. And like the GOP primary so far, expect that such advertising will have an effect on the campaign, almost certainly favoring Obama.

Again I ask, where's the money coming from? And why?

I have been reading some on these 557, etc and quite frankly whether created by soros or Rove I believe they spin so much misinformation that voters never do get to relevant information so as to make an informed choice.
Its all about fluff and negativity....seldom the issue.

I mean you could go to the House of Plastic and stand in front of those statues and listen to the pre-recordings of super PAC and walked away as if you went to a political rally

We have the Roberts court to thank.

I think the superpacs are an adomination, regardless of which side they are on. However, I would add that anyone that is influenced to vote one way or another by an advertisement is neither informed enough nor intelligent enough to retain the right to vote.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I think the superpacs are an adomination, regardless of which side they are on. However, I would add that anyone that is influenced to vote one way or another by an advertisement is neither informed enough nor intelligent enough to retain the right to vote.

Excellent post - Agree 100%

I really don't understand why these negative ads would make any difference if a voter knows and believes in the candidate they are voting for. Personally and not that it matters I could not vote for the current president not that I would not vote for that party. Not to say it in this post but we know what the current administration will, can and can't do . So judging from that there may only be one other choice. Hopefully we don't waste our vote. And I'm sorry I got off topic a little.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I think the superpacs are an adomination, regardless of which side they are on. However, I would add that anyone that is influenced to vote one way or another by an advertisement is neither informed enough nor intelligent enough to retain the right to vote.

"Abomination" is a bit harsh, but I agree with your post. All information from any media source is slanted to the news entity's political leanings. There is no such thing as truly objective journalism. Research is your responsibility.

Originally Posted by DDoug

I really don't understand why these negative ads would make any difference if a voter knows and believes in the candidate they are voting for. ...

I wish it were true that voters took the time to understand the issues in order to choose and support the candidate that represents what they believe is important. But seldom does that happen. Too many voters are influenced by what the media and the talking heads, and yes, the negative advertising says to them. It's been proven time and again. It's happening before our eyes in Iowa. How many poll leaders have we seen that were put down by negative advertising. Newt Gingrich is the most recent and notable. He rose in the polls quickly, drawing a sunami of negative advertising funded by the super PAC supported by one of the candidates. In a matter of a couple of weeks Gingrich was dropped from leading the field with somewhwre near 30% of the voters to his present position down around fourth or fifth in the polls. Unfortunately, the negative advertising funded by the super PAC's works. That still leaves us with the questions...where is the money coming from?...and why?

Stephen Colbert has probably been the best person on the planet when it comes to exposing the SuperPACS. He brought his viewers along for the ride as he created a SuperPAC and was pointing out, every step of the way, how they answer to nobody, you can't trace where the money comes from and they can basically do anything.