Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're comparing the money raised by the Presidential candidates to all money spent by PAC's for all the elections, not just the Presidential one.

Also, WSJ has different numbers: http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

Also see NYT's breakdown: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

Looking at the NYT data, the candidates together raised $1.2 billion on direct contributions (which are capped at $2,500). Even going by the Open Secrets number, the fact is that Obama and Romney raised more money directly (with a relatively small contribution cap), than PAC's spent on the entire election for all candidates.

Now, there is something troubling about the information in the NYT article: $1 billion raised by PAC's, the vast majority of it coming from donations of more than $100k. Is it going to spiral out of control from there? Or is the dismal failure of PAC-backed campaigns going to cause 2012 to be the high watermark? Who knows.

But what we do know is that 2012 was unprecedented, and Citizens United only happened a few years ago. Was Washington broken 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago? It's hard to argue that the government is appreciably more corrupt or pro-corporation than it was in they heyday of Ronald Reagan. But all of that was before Citizens United and before the rise of Super PACs. I would assert this: if the government is broken, it has been that way for awhile. But total outside spending was $50m or less through 2000: http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: