![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A DOLLAR DOESN’T BUY WHAT IT USED TO
Re: the previous post –
Evidently one reason Karl Rove is making a long list of excuses for Romney’s loss and the GOP’s overall failure to make any gains in the election is because some of his SuperPAC supporters are a little miffed that their $300 million didn’t get any Republicans elected, and are demanding an explanation.
And let’s all just ponder just what that says about SuperPACs for a moment.
I’ve said before that all the dithering over the Citizens United case that enabled Super PACs and unlimited corporate contributions was overblown, because money in politics was already a big enough issue that allowing things like Super PACs wouldn’t make a big difference.
And as it turns out, it didn’t – at least not in terms of actual results. Remember the big fear that Super PACs meant that Big Rich Corporations would be able to steal the election for Republicans by throwing enough money at it?
Turns out they couldn’t.
However …
The reaction from Rove’s contributors and characters like The Donald Trump does seem to indicate that conservative Super PAC donors seemed to think they would be getting more for their money.
Maybe that’s simply because Rove made promises he couldn't keep. Still, you have to wonder about the mentality of someone who sinks that kind of money into a campaign fund and openly complains that they didn’t get what they paid for – as if they were buying a product, and now they’re unhappy with the merchandise.
Anyway. It’ll be interesting to see what this means for Super PACs in the next election. Maybe once the 1% realize that Super PACs are the equivalent of investing millions of dollars into something with no guarantee of a positive outcome, they’ll think twice about sinking so much money into them.
Then again, that’s how Wall Street works. So maybe not.
You’ll never pay for the farm,
This is dF
Evidently one reason Karl Rove is making a long list of excuses for Romney’s loss and the GOP’s overall failure to make any gains in the election is because some of his SuperPAC supporters are a little miffed that their $300 million didn’t get any Republicans elected, and are demanding an explanation.
And let’s all just ponder just what that says about SuperPACs for a moment.
I’ve said before that all the dithering over the Citizens United case that enabled Super PACs and unlimited corporate contributions was overblown, because money in politics was already a big enough issue that allowing things like Super PACs wouldn’t make a big difference.
And as it turns out, it didn’t – at least not in terms of actual results. Remember the big fear that Super PACs meant that Big Rich Corporations would be able to steal the election for Republicans by throwing enough money at it?
Turns out they couldn’t.
However …
The reaction from Rove’s contributors and characters like The Donald Trump does seem to indicate that conservative Super PAC donors seemed to think they would be getting more for their money.
Maybe that’s simply because Rove made promises he couldn't keep. Still, you have to wonder about the mentality of someone who sinks that kind of money into a campaign fund and openly complains that they didn’t get what they paid for – as if they were buying a product, and now they’re unhappy with the merchandise.
Anyway. It’ll be interesting to see what this means for Super PACs in the next election. Maybe once the 1% realize that Super PACs are the equivalent of investing millions of dollars into something with no guarantee of a positive outcome, they’ll think twice about sinking so much money into them.
Then again, that’s how Wall Street works. So maybe not.
You’ll never pay for the farm,
This is dF