This chart shows the share of all contributions given by the top ten donors to super PACs still active in the 2012 election, through September, 2012.
Click for interactive graphic

Source: ProPublica

Category: Digital Media, Legal, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

16 Responses to “Who are the Super PACs’ Biggest Donors?”

  1. gordo365 says:

    Looks like swift boat funder Bob Perry has his check book out and not afraid to use it at the “Democracy for sale” auction…

  2. wally says:

    Money is like a bullhorn; it amplifies your voice in our one-dollar, one-vote system.

  3. NoKidding says:

    What a fantastic waste of money.

  4. failedevolution says:

    The totalitarianism of the one-dimensional culture and slow death :

  5. A says:

    Should be interesting to see how fast the lawsuit against Adelson is dropped if Romney is chosen.

    Perhaps you can buy freedom.

  6. CharlesII says:

    Interesting that the huge threat to civilization posed by teachers’ unions being involved in elections amounts to 1.8% of the contribution of a single individual, Harold Simmons.

    Our elections aren’t even really decent shams anymore.

  7. louiswi says:

    Elections a sham??
    On Tuesday you will be asked to participate in this sham. You will in fact have the opportunity to get a “purple thumb”, the hall mark of a democracy participant. Just remember on the Wednesday after, you will also have a purple winkie-the result of the mental masturbation that is involved in voting in this sham. Any intelligent individual will avoid voting for it does nothing but give legitimacy to this sham. Without the voters, the sham would stand naked for all the world to see.
    As P.J. O’Rourke would say, “don’t vote, it just gives credibility to the bastards”.!

  8. huxrules says:

    This is disgusting. And it doesn’t show what crossroads gps is doing because it can operate in secret.

  9. [...] – The Super Pac’s biggest donors. [...]

  10. Malachi says:

    So this is who 50% of our work is for. Good to know. I guess they are hoping to get 51%.

  11. WallaWalla says:


    I disagree with the premise that all voting gives legitimacy to this rightfully-named sham. Voting third party seems to be the only way to further one’s own interests in our current system. While it certainly seems fruitless given their success during the past half-dozen political cycles, Obama’s capitulation to beltway interests (after running a campaign based on changing the status quo no less) solidifies my belief that change will have to come from outside the two dominant parties. Voting third party is the only reasonable way of accomplishing this short of all out revolution.

  12. NoKidding says:

    Trust your third party not to be harvested once it gets big enough? Tea party and Occupy are examples of independent movements that folded into the existing parties when party clowns claimed ownership and the complicit media gave it to with them.
    I vote a straight challenger ticket. Congressional approval rating hit 11 percent, but I bet more than 80 percent will be reelected (again? Thats insane. Corruption and lies don’t get smaller with time, they grow. Do yourself and your elected officials a favor by sending them home.

  13. WallaWalla says:

    Well, it’s hard to say that the Occupy movement ever achieved ‘party’ status. And, I’m not sure you could say that the Tea Party was harvested by the Republicans either. In fact, they ousted many sitting republicans back in 2010. They seem to have been extraordinarily effective at pushing their ultra-conservative agenda into the republican party. With the help of very powerful and wealthy backers, they’ve influenced the political makeup. Surely, if the green party or justice party began to get significant votes, the Democrats would shift their policies, and, at the end of the day, isn’t that a heck of a lot more effective than not voting at all?

  14. jonhendry says:

    “Voting third party is the only reasonable way of accomplishing this short of all out revolution.”

    Only if you vote third-party (and work for third parties) at local and state level first.

    Doing nothing for four years, then making an impotent “stand” by voting for a hopeless third-party candidate for President is idiotic and pointless.

  15. jonhendry says:

    Even if Obama had lived up all the most left-leaningest hopes from 2008, and been the Platonic ideal of Liberal Obamaness, he *still* would have faced as much or more resistance from Republicans, as much interference from grandstanding tools like Ben Nelson, Wall Street-owned Senators and Congressmen, etc. The way things work, the only thing likely to change would be foreign policy. Maybe there wouldn’t be a “kill list” and there wouldn’t be as many/any drone strikes. Domestic issues would probably look mostly similar.

    A third-party candidate that seems perfect would face even more obstruction.

    Which is why, if you really want to see any change in the system, you can’t just lazily lodge a pointless protest vote. You need to get off your ass and work in your town and state to get a third party viable, for the long term. Eventually you might get a few people into Congress, and they might just have enough ability to obstruct the other parties that they would have influence beyond their numbers.