Posted on 07/31/2013 5:02:44 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Sarah Palin's political action committee—simply named Sarah PAC—took in $460,537.83 so far this year, according to new filings with the Federal Election Commission. That sounds like a pretty big number! But when you look at how much the PAC has been spending, how it has been spending it, and the way things used to be, the picture looks far bleaker.
First, the spending picture: In the first six months of 2013, Sarah PAC spent $496,505.68. That's $35,967.85 more than the PAC was able to raise. To be clear, Sarah PAC isn't in debt: In the latest filing, the PAC reports having $1,113,971.25 on hand.
It's easy to see that things aren't great, however. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Sarah PAC's most recent haul compares very badly to what it took in over the last two years. By this time in 2012, Sarah PAC had raised $1.2 million. That wasn't just an election year fluke; by the end of June 2011, the PAC had raised $1.7 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
To be clear, Matt Berman was just assigned to do a hit piece on Sarah and did it. Mission accomplished for the Obama buttlicking Matt.
What this fake journalist DOESN'T do is provide context for this story. In June 2011 and June 2012, there was a clear momentum for conservatives going into a presidential election year.
What Miss Matt Berman ALSO doesn't do is tell you how other PACs are spending and raising money...are Sarah's numbers out of line with other political action committees in the year AFTER a presidential election and NOT the year of mid-term?
This kind of garbage is what poses at journalism at the National Journal?
Oh, and the rest of the article is just criticism for Sarah paying consultants....as if no other PACs pay consultants. Nothing illegal going on, apparently, it is just that Matt is wondering if we ought to be concerned....
Gag.
Maybe I'll just go over to Sarahpac and give her some more money now....
Please show me where they’ve delved into any other politician or private citizen’s PAC in any detail. For instance: Hillary Clinton. No, you say? Curious.
They are akin to the race baiters, they believe they found their little corner to continue their circle jerks.
So damn tired of all the crazy dysfunction, everywhere.
fyi.
Is this the turkey that’s been writing hit pieces on her for years?
Why is Yahoo such a POS search engine?
The World may never know.
lol
“To be clear” we are breaking from RINOS!! to the FREEDOM party and the “whigs” are truey history unless they deal with us,
Which means she is generous to a fault.
I like her.
It’s so nice to see they are worried about her.
bttt
Gov. Palin absolutely scares the snot out of them, doesn’t she?
BUMP!
I recall that weasel John Avlon wrote a similar hit piece on Sarah’s PAC several months ago. Hmmm...I detect a pattern here.
Both liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans are afraid of Sarah because she is Conservative and is not afraid to articulate conservative ideas.
Wow, that comment is 200% correct. They are disrespecting Hispanics by assuming they are for rewarding lawbreakers.
Right On!
Isn’t she supposed to be irrelevant?
I’d say check back in 2014 when the campaign season heats up
“You’re right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in... 60 years.”
A worthless target attracts no fire!
also, showing up to a person’s campaign event is a money generator in itself.
The money will be there when she indicates where/when it is needed.
How many people has the PAC supported that not only has she supported but we have given directly to their treasury.
She has not asked people to donate to it on her Facebook for as long as I can remember
It was a big news story this week when a pro-Hillary group raised one million.
Sarah believes God will provide. All she has to do is make a need public and she knows our hearts will be tugged to give what we can.
She unlike the race hustlers and political party does not have to solicits Guest appearances - giving of herself - does the trick.
Non-story.
I don’t know why she even needs a PAC.
All she has to do is to tweet an endorsement in a Republican primary and everyone knows where she stands.
She doesn’t need a PAC for that.
Yes, I think you are right. But as far as I remember the criticism then was that her PAC hadn't spent enough money - despite the fact that it had maxed out on almost all candidates she supported. Go figure!
I also seem to remember that someone at Conservatives4Palin.com wrote a response and showed that SarahPAC's spending compared very favourably with that of Rubio's PAC, a PAC that strangely enough (hmmph) had not been attacked by Avlon et co.
Like tea party peaked, or Palin losing influence, etc etc. like these jerks fervently ‘hoping’ for they will fade from people's minds.
Keep the two in news cycles, will do just opposite that.
This is a fine example of why I cancelled my subscriptions to the National Review and the Weekly Standard. Every now and then it is good to remember.....
I missed that reply to Avlon’s piece. I’ll have to check it out.
If Sarah does run for the Senate she’ll be getting a check from me, that’s for sure.
Yes, she surely does.
Links below:
More Selective Outrage over PAC Spending
In short Governor Palin’s PAC in 2012 donated to more than 40 House candidates and to 10 Senate candidates. In comparison, Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC gave to four Senate races. That’s it.
But her attack on crony capitalism and "political consultants" has really angered quite a few people - those people that should be booted out of all public affairs or any public office they might hold!
Freep Regards
SB
I stopped trusting C4P after finding out that one of their top contributors is a radical gay activist
As always you have to read anything you read with a critical mind and don’t take anything on trust. There are few people we agree with to 100%.
I must admit I was surprised when I read that that commenter was a radical gay activist, but looking through his writing on C4P (which has no direct link with SP) nothing or at least very little has had anything to do with a gay agenda.
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.