Quote:

---

Taking advantage of relaxed campaign finance laws, a cadre of deep-pocketed donors are spending gobs of money to bankroll super PACs, a phenomenon that is reshaping the modern election cycle.

It is a select group. The top 100 individual super PAC donors make up just 3.7% of those who have contributed to the new money vehicles, but account for more than 80% of the total money raised, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

And just the top 46 donors have given a total of $67 million, or two-thirds of the $112 million in individual gifts to super PACs this cycle. Membership in this select group requires a $500,000 minimum donation.

So who are these folks?

Donors who have given in excess of $500,000 are a rather homogenous group who represent narrow swaths of American industry.

Titans of the financial services industry are well represented, as are energy executives and hoteliers. Almost all are men. Racial minorities are few and far between. So far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to conservative groups.

"We're looking at a singularly weird phenomenon," said John Dunbar, the managing editor for politics at the Center for Public Integrity.

Critics argue that the eye-popping size of donations from individuals raise important questions about their motivations and the ability of the wealthy to influence candidates and the election.

"American elections are funded by a very narrow range of special interests, and that has the effect of making our democracy look a lot more like a plutocracy," Ryan said.

Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that it is difficult to discern the motivations of super-wealthy donors. Are they driven by ideology, economic interests, or some combination of the two?

Harold Simmons, who played a central role in the development of leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, offered some insight into that question last week.

Simmons has given $18 million to conservative super PACs this cycle, and has pledged millions more. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he displayed a deep unhappiness with President Obama, calling him a "socialist."

At the same time, Simmons' current business interests would benefit greatly from less government regulation of certain industries, and he told the WSJ that if Republicans do well in November, "we can block that crap [regulations]."

"So which is it?" Mann asked. "He may be a good businessman, but if he can make a comment like that about Obama, I'd say his ideology overwhelms his self interest."

To date, conservative super PACs have far outpaced fundraising efforts by Democrats. "The pool of billionaires who can throw tens of millions into the game -- and are inclined to do so -- is concentrated on the right," Mann said.

In the end, the most notable affect of super PACs might not be on the presidential race, but rather on Congressional elections.

Mann and Dunbar both expressed worry about the use of super PAC money in House and Senate races, where relatively small amounts of money can have an outsized impact.

"An individual donor and a super PAC could go off to some district in Kentucky and just completely destroy some candidate because he doesn't favor what's good for your business," Dunbar said. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/super-pac-donors/index.ht
m?iid=GM

---

Quote:

---

I'm ashamed of us, the citizenry, for what we will buy. Is it really so simple that if you blare a message at us long enough and loud enough and often enough we'll believe it?

---

Quote:

---

Obama's words were edited in a section where he is heard to say, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Obama was actually quoting his Republican opponent. The full quote is: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

---