| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Election 2012 |
| Dems Panic About Opponents Spending |
| 2012-05-19 |
| Conservative interest groups have dumped well over $20 million into congressional races so far this year, outspending their liberal opponents 4 to 1 and setting off a growing panic among Democrats struggling to regain the House and hold on to their slim majority in the Senate. Front page of the WaPo, above the fold. They must feel the panic, too. The surge suggests that big-spending super PACs and nonprofit groups, which have become dominant players in the presidential race, will also play a pivotal role in House and Senate contests that will determine the balance of power in Washington in 2013. Too bad Obumble didn't legislate control of those groups his first term. The money could be particularly crucial in races below the national radar that can be easily influenced by infusions of outside spending. One example came this week in Nebraska, where a dark-horse Republican Senate candidate upset two better-funded rivals in the GOP primary thanks in part to a last-minute, $250,000 ad buy by a billionaire-backed super PAC. And in Indiana this month, veteran Sen. Richard G. Lugar was ousted in the GOP primary by challenger Richard Mourdock with the help of millions of dollars in spending by conservative groups. The Club for Growth, which backed a losing candidate in Nebraska, spent more than $2 million to help Mourdock in Indiana. Their philosophy, from their website: The goal of tax policy should be to raise the amount of money needed to fund legitimate functions of government while doing the least amount of damage to the economy and respecting the principle of treating taxpayers equally. "We're just getting started," said Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller, who said the group will soon begin training its fire on Democrats. "Our group has already had an impact on what the composition of Congress is going to look like next year. That's our whole goal is to have an impact, to improve the gene pool in Congress." While Democrats welcomed the Leading Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have stepped up their fundraising efforts in recent months on behalf of liberal-leaning super PACs, which can raise unlimited money but have fallen far short of matching their conservative opponents. "The very reason our group was founded in the first place was to confront the flood of outside spending from the other side," said Andrew Stone, a spokesman for House Majority PAC, a Democratic group focused on House contests. "Our donors understand the dynamics at play here. The pitch is, we saw what happened in 2010 in so many congressional districts where the Democrats were just totally overwhelmed." The only reason the conservatives won was money, so we have to have more! Can we raise taxes to fund dem candidates? Interest groups on both sides have reported spending $29.7 million on congressional races so far this election cycle, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports. The spending is more than twice the amount similar groups had spent at this point ahead of the 2008 elections. It's also higher than the $25.2 million spent during the 2010 midterms, when several high-profile special elections and primary fights drove outside expenditures to new heights. Spending among the largest groups favors Republicans by about 4 to 1, although that is due in part to a number of fierce Republican primary fights, the data show. GOP Senate primaries in Indiana and Texas, for example, have each drawn more than $4 million in spending by independent groups. So it really is too early to panic, but just the right time for the WaPo to urge democratic panic. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #7 Right, Robert. We should just go with the RINO. *pfffft* |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-05-19 17:29 |
| #6 The headline is pretty retarded. The intense intra-party fights within the GOP turn off the losing factions (whether conservatives or moderates) and depress GOP turnout. The money spigot is limited, since GOP supporters also have to feed their families. The more spent in the primaries, the less money available for the general. Much as I despise Lugar, I sure hope he doesn't get replaced by a Democrat. Angle and O'Donnell were disasters as candidates - they were gaffe machines and ran way to the right of their electorates. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-05-19 16:30 |
| #5 Or perhaps more accurate, not just the d's but the collectivists in general. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-05-19 14:30 |
| #4 It wasn't so much about removing a governor anywhere, but throwing down the gauntlet to kill the idea, the idea of cutting costs and cutting union powers, to kill the idea before it caught on and, even worse for them, showed results quickly. Even a recall election where a different Republican won, would still be a victory for the d's. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-05-19 14:29 |
| #3 Nice how that works out. As Fredrick the Great once mused - he who defends everything, defends nothing. Going after Governor Walker has cost the Donks and their ancillary union minions dearly in resources as they look at the broad national election battlefield. That's why you observe them desperately doing first class, in broad daylight, pandering. Force them to burn up their resources now and as quickly as they can think they can accumulate it. Leave them no reserves to throw in at the last moment. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-05-19 14:17 |
| #2 Isn't this the same DNC that pulled money from congressional campaigns to fund the Walker recall fight? Removing an elected Gov. in Wisc. is apparently more important than congress? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2012-05-19 13:07 |
| #1 If you realise Obama's probably going to extort any spare cash you have left on re-election it might be worth spending some to try and stop you. A bit like spending money on a burglar alarm. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-05-19 13:05 |