Skip to main content

I hope this message gets delivered tomorrow night - our votes can't be bought!

One reason I really hope that the Democratic Party kicks some serious tail tomorrow night in the elections is the Citizens United ruling. In this election cycle, $628,942,928 has been spent by Super PACs. Among the top five Super PAC spenders are three conservative-leaning groups: American Crossroads, Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity, whom have spent a combined $355,098,737. The two liberal-leaning groups - Priorities USA and Majority PAC - have spent a combined $104,905,151, or 29.5% of the there conservative-leaning groups.

For the presidential election, Super PACs have spent a combined $556,746,117. When it comes to President Obama, $25,889,820 has been spent in support of him and $137,772,488 against Romney. On the flip-side, for Governor Romney, $90,957,779 has been spent in support of him and $290,006,064 against the president. So, the ratio of anti-Romney to pro-Romney spending by Super PACs is at roughly 1.5 : 1. However, the ratio of anti-Obama to pro-Obama spending by Super PACs is at approximately 11 : 1. The pro-Romney/anti-Obama spending by Super PACs is at $380,963,843 in comparison to the pro-Obama/anti-Romney spending, which is at $163,662,308, a ratio of almost 2.5 : 1.

Mailers are a perfect example of this spending and the drastic difference between the two parties on spending in this election cycle. Last Thursday, I received seven pro-Romney/anti-Obama mailers and only one pro-Obama/anti-Romney mailer. Today, I received six pro-Romney/anti-Obama mailers and didn't receive any pro-Obama/anti-Romney mailers.

Through the Citizens United ruling, the insane amount of money that's been spent by Super PACs in light of that - by conservative-leaning groups in particular - and the determination by Republican leaders to suppress voting, I truly hope that the country raises a united middle finger to all the Super PACs, corporations and politicians who tried to either buy or silence our voices, and that it will result in a big night for the Democratic Party tomorrow.

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"