Skip to footer

Election 2012: top seven super PACs

Decoder profiles the seven top super PACs, the organizations that have spent the most trying to influence the elections – and still have the most money in the bank.

5. Majority PAC

Evan Vucci/AP
Republican candidate George Allen, (r.) and Democratic candidate Tim Kaine shake hands during a Senatorial debate in Virginia, Sept. 20. Majority PAC, a super PAC committed to electing Democratic senators, has spent the most money on the Allen-Kaine race, spending $2,623,811 against Allen, and $1,002,310 in support of Kaine.

Majority PAC, founded by top Democratic advisers, aims to defend the Democratic majority in the Senate. Over the 2012 campaign cycle, it has spent $14.2 million and raised $14.6 million, as of Oct. 4. This super PAC has not spent any money for or against presidential candidates.

The left-leaning equivalent of American Crossroads, Majority PAC is run by top Democrats. The group's co-founder is Susan McCue, former chief of staff to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada. Veterans of the Clinton administration and the presidential campaigns of Vice President Al Gore, Sen. John Kerry, and Obama serve in key leadership roles.

The PAC receives its top donations from unions, lawyers, and financiers. Its No. 1 donor is is James Simons, a billionaire hedge fund manager, who gave $1.5 million. Another major source of funding is the labor movement, which contributed more than $3.2 million, including $1 million from the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), $750,000 from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), and $500,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Majority PAC has targeted 11 Republicans running for Senate and supported four Democrats. Their top target is Virginia's US Senate race, where the super PAC has spent more than $1 million to elect former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) and some $2.6 million to defeat his GOP rival, former Sen. George Allen, who also served as governor of Virginia from 1994 to 1998.

Sourcing this Report:

Several sources were used to compile this report. 

The figures for total expenditures, total money raised, and totals spent in support or opposition of specific candidates were taken from Open Secrets. Open Secrets is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that tracks money in US politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The website, which was launched in 1996, is project of The Center for Responsive Politics, which was founded in 1983 by US Sens. Frank Church (D-Idaho) and Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), in order to track money in politics, public policy, and elections. 

All figures were taken from the 2012 election cycle, and were based on data released by the FEC, and last updated Oct. 4. For Open Secrets' full report on spending by all 900 super PACs click here.

Advertising figures and specific markets targeted were taken from the Washington Post's Mad Money feature, which tracks the cumulative and weekly spending on television advertising by candidate and by the groups supporting them. The Post also calculated the percentage of ads that have been negative vs. positive. Their data was last updated Oct. 3.

The Center for Public Integrity, and the New York Times were used for background research on top donors and organizers of each super PAC. 

Other sites used include the official webpages for each super PAC, the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group, NBC News, as well as some local news sources like the Dallas Morning News and the Denver Post.

5 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.