Profile image
By Sunlight Foundation Blog (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

A Democratic outside group finally outspent Jeb Bush’s big-money super PAC

Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:10
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

By The Sunlight Foundation

A logo for Priorities USA Action in front of an outline of America.
(Image credit: Priorities USA Action)

There’s little disagreement that this has been a crazy and unpredictable election cycle. Although money in politics was a focal point early in the campaign, the lack of spending by Republican nominee Donald Trump during the primaries had some questioning whether outside spending still mattered given the failure of Right to Rise, the colossal pro-Jeb Bush super PAC, to counter such a polarizing opponent. (We’ll be watching for any more developments over the next few days as the last round of pre-election campaign finance reports are filed with the FEC.)

Right to Rise spent $86 million dollars in independent expenditures supporting the failed candidacy of Bush. For the most part, the super PAC took the high road; $83 million of that total went toward efforts boasting of Bush’s record and qualifications to be president.

Meanwhile, Trump was getting earned media through the outrageous things he said, calling into 24-hour cable stations and making appearances on shows like Saturday Night Live. As we pointed out, it was a pretty ingenious approach to the primary. But hindsight is 20/20, and perhaps that strategy was strengthened by Republicans who didn’t want to take a strong swing (at least through super PACs) at a fellow Republican nominee.

Now in the general cycle we’re getting an idea of what that strategy looks like when opposed by major super PAC spending.

For the first time, Trump is actually getting hit by a strong opposition super PAC campaign. Priorities USA Action, which backed President Barack Obama in 2012 and includes such liberal megadonors as George Soros, Fred Eychaner and Donald Sussman, is working to elect Hillary Clinton. Much of its effort has simply used Trump’s own words against him – possibly ones he said in order to gain free media coverage. The group has officially spent a whopping $140 million this election cycle, including $134 million dollars funding attacks against Trump. And look for this number to increase in the weeks leading up to Election Day — Priorities USA Chief Strategist Guy Cecil stated that more money is being poured into crucial swing states starting today.

On the other hand, the Trump campaign did little fundraising during the primary and had to scramble to load its coffers for the general election. Few outside organizations supported him initially, so it isn’t surprising that outside groups have spent $228 million opposing him and only $35 million supporting him. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has had nearly $62 million in outside spending against her thus far compared with $39 million supporting her.

But let’s put that in context by comparing to 2012. Mitt Romney had an equal amount, $90 million, spent both opposing and supporting him. On the other hand, Obama was subject to a whopping $333 million opposing him and only had $49 million in his favor — but won the election in spite of all this.

It’s hard to say what all of this means when you have a candidate who isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty himself. In a typical election, candidates let their super PACs attack their opponent so they can distance themselves from the attack as well as not have their own words used against them in attack ads. Trump, breaking with campaign tradition, clearly had no fear of either of these things, and even seems to relish in incorporating attacks normally reserved for super PACs and dark money groups in his stump speeches.

Will the super PAC money really matter, or will the voters brush off this media blitz? The ultimate referendum, of course, happens on Nov. 8.

The Sunlight Foundation is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that uses the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency, and provides new tools and resources for media and citizens, alike.


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.