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...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...