Posted on 09/06/2011 10:25:55 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
The new super PAC backing Rick Perry has drawn up plans to spend $55 million as part of an ambitious campaign strategy aimed at blowing away the Texas governor's rivals in early primary states and securing him the Republican nomination by next spring, according to internal committee documents obtained by NBC News.
The documents underscore the central role that such super PACs — or super political action committees unconstrained by any limits on how much they can collect from wealthy donors and corporations — will play in the 2012 presidential election.
They also show that the strategists behind the new Perry super PAC, led by a longtime Perry confidant and backed with infusions of cash from major Perry donors, are preparing to mount a full service political operation — complete with TV advertising, direct mail and social media outreach.
If it realizes its goals, the super PAC — which calls itself "Make Us Great Again" — will likely eclipse the financial operations of Perry's official presidential campaign committee, according to some Republican consultants.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Everybody, we need to DESPERATELY hope that the whole state of Texas burns to the ground, so that Perry is discredited and SARAH! can take her rightful place at the top of the heap once again.
I’m not sure if this is one of those threads where nobody cares about the facts or not, but in case it is.
First, this is based on a planning document. The PAC has not RAISED $55 million. It had a PLAN to SPEND that much, presumably if they could raise that much, over the next year. So there is no “campaign stash”.
Second, a SuperPac is not associated with a candidate. They can raise money FOR a candidate, because the courts have ruled that people are allowed to give money to express their opinions, without restriction. The Pac is not part of a particular campaign, and it is not run by the campaign staff.
Third, the plan reviewed by the news organization is an old, outdated plan. Not sure why that would matter, I presume they still have a plan to raise money and spend it to help elect Rick Perry. Just as there is a PAC which is working to get Michelle Bachmann elected, and there will be a PAC working to get Sarah Palin elected if she enters the race.
I’ve never seen so many conservatives so upset about people raising money to express their opinions on elections. It’s like they think SarahPac doesn’t even exist.
The distinction is stupid, part of the rediculous attempts by career politicians to control how people spend their money to express their opinions. SuperPac and Pac are what we end up with when government regulates people. I’m opposed to that regulation, I think it’s an infringement on our rights.
I have no idea who donates to SarahPac. I’m sure they get money from people who like was Sarah does, and would like to see her continue. Probably also from people who want her to run for office, and hope the money helps get her elected.
I forgot though that some conservatives have now decided that corporations are evil. It’s a bit scary.
OK, to answer your question a bit better. I looked up SarahPac to see the donors. I have NOTHING against people OR corporations giving money to support causes they like. You asked the question.
The first donor on the list was the President of Melina Imports. Now, these are individual donors; the donation is from the president of the corporation, not from the corporation itself, although when you see news reports indicating which companies are supporting which candidates, they always refer to money given by officers of a company as being related to that company, just because that’s what they do, whether it makes sense or not.
The president of Acorn Advisors also gave money. I doubt this is the same “ACORN” that we all hate.
Also, the chairman of TH MCELVAIN OIL & GAS
And the President of RA MILLER INDUSTRIES
And the Owner of APW ENTERPRISES
And the President of FUN EQUIPMENT SALES
And the CEO of ALPS SOUTH LLC
The President of FLAVA PUFF
The President of TRAINYARD TECH, LLC
The Vice President of AW WILLIAMS DRILLING
The President of PUMP REPAIR SPECIALIST INC
Now, you could argue that all of those people who own companies gave their own personal money without regard to their companies. But it is clear that people who OWN businesses are giving money to SarahPac. Probably because they believe what Sarah Palin is doing will be good for their companies. Because that is what business owners do — give money to support candidates who will help their businesses.
And there is nothing wrong with that, or at least there wasn’t from a conservative point of view until someone decided “crony capitalism” really meant “businesses are evil”.
Corporations are not evil.....I never said that. But the ‘soft pay for play’ schemes is one of the root problems for why simple things like cutting government don’t get done in Washington D.C. by the Republican Establishment and Liberals....they have to grease their friends first whether it’s unions to corporate kick backs
You have NO way of knowing IF $55 million has or has not been raised. Because as you stated this document is a ‘planning document’.
IT IS A FACT that Governor Perry less than a year ago stated publicly he was NOT going to run for president.
Excuse me while I attempt to discover the ‘FACT(s)’ that made him change his mind. IT goes to the character of a person who is seeking my vote to stop this insanity that is over US. AND claiming Reagan was a democrat and changed his party affiliation will NOT hold water. WE have the literal ‘FACTS’ of what Reagan stood for and Perry is an unknown, most especially since he was out to lunch even after 8 years of President Reagan.
I'm beginning to think the conservatives are being taken over by populists, who rail against business and think "corporate capitalism" is a bad thing.
I've never seen conservatives so up in arms about people spending money to support their candidates.
I remember not long ago when we were all CHEERING the Citizen's United court decision, and attacking Obama for denigrating the court at his state of the union address. Now it looks like some conservatives support Obama's attack on that decision, and believe that unlimited expenditures should be made illegal somehow.
Hitting early and hard was the name of this election cycle. I am thrilled Rick is in hard. These are the same reasons I remained convinced Sarah wouldn’t. Too little and way too damn late. SP needs to keep him honest once he boots BHO.
Remember how we are always told how many times Palin was attacked unfairly? It appears more and more like you want to make sure all the other candidates get attacked just as unfairly.
Do you remember the MSM going after Sarah Palin for her legal defense fund? All the guilt-by-association arguments, the “it looks bad so it is bad” arguments”, the ludicrous charges based only on innuendo and appearance? Eventually I think they had to shut it down and return money just to get beyond those rediculous charges.
Now you are doing the same thing.
Really? Exactly what do you think that Reagan stood for when he was a Democrat? Would you be surprised to know that Perry was much more conservative as a Democrat than Reagan was as a Democrat? Would you be surprised to know that Perry started voting for Republican candidates for President at a much younger age than Reagan did? You might want to double check your "facts".
Right now, Perry is apparently blocking the path they see to Palin. Now, Palin doesn’t seem to think that, and her supporters here insist that when Palin enters the race, Perry will be an afterthought.
But it appears they don’t really believe that, because they are certainly trying to burn the conservative village down to try to stop Perry.
Today they have already attacked a tort reform organization, and now a group of businesses willing to spend their own money to save our country from Obama. They’be attacked a good conservative lawmaker for having the temerity to sign up to be a Perry economic advisor.
He's the new comer. Others already in the race are pretty well known to the majority of us.
We have the article. The ONLY place where $55 million is mentioned. And it doesn’t SAY they raised $55 million. It says they plan to SPEND that much.
If they had RAISED $55 million, the article would have said they raised $55 million. The statement that they have raised $55 million is a fabrication.
If they had said they hoped to spend $100 million, would you insist they had already RAISED that much? Probably, I guess. As I said, maybe this isn’t one of those threads where facts matter.
It is a fact that Perry said he wasn’t going to run. People convinced him to change his mind. If you watched his talk in Tim Scott’s town hall meeting saturday, you would know why he changed his mind. If you cared about the facts, you would watch to find out the facts, and not assert unsupported claims that some PAC raised $55 million dollars already, as a way of falsely smearing a candidate you claim to want the facts for.
I am glad he changed his mind. I don’t know if I’ll support him, but we need good conservatives to step up to the plate.
So, why do you think he changed his mind? What reason for changing his mind would make a difference to you?
Good news for Perry. This race is going to be hugely expensive and it going to take a lot of money to counter the upcoming Democrat offensive in the general election.
SP isn’t runing. And, yes, Rick is most of the reason why. She does like his style and would prefer his to ticket to McCAIN’s on any day. But bet he picks Rubio.
Hardly. The press is going to give all the candidates a colonoscopy. We'd better find their warts first.
Cue the Talking Heads! Great snarky post !
You are correct. And you are right in noting that populism and conservatism are not the same thing.
Gee advance man for algore presidential aspirations is all the FACT I need to know who what and where Perry was in the days of Reagan... I live through those years of the democrat treatment of Ronald Reagan... Now Reagan made it acceptable to be 'conservative' on the national stage and the voters in each and every state FORCED the politicians to present themselves in the image of what is required to get elected. I do not play stupid that these politicians are in this game for 'service' but more than likely self service. I do not know enough about Perry yet to make that discernment... BUT know this his supporters are NOT helping his cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.