The Now or Never SuperPAC is going to spend $4.5 million on just one House race. That is a lot of cheese. But what is really remarkable is that they are spending on Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois. Rep. Walsh is most famous for being a deadbeat dad. Other than that, he’s famous for berating his own constituents and saying very crazy things. Just yesterday, Walsh said something that no sentient being should ever say:
Republican Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.) said Thursday that abortions are “absolutely” never necessary to save the lives of pregnant women.
“With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance,” Walsh said. “There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
Even more confusing, Rep. Walsh is running for reelection in a newly-drawn district that is heavily Democratic, and against a well-fiananced and strongly credentialed candidate in Tammy Duckworth. His chances of winning were never good. Even $4.5 million of attack ads probably can’t win the seat for the Republicans. So, why is this SuperPAC pouring so much money into this particular race? There are at least three more competitive seats in Illinois alone.
If it’s because Walsh is a crazed idiot on abortion, there are dozens of candidates just like him who have a better chance of winning. Is it solely because Walsh is so good at pissing off liberals? Is that they only reason Walsh is being lavished with so much cash?
What gives?
This is an election that should be studied for the equivalent of money laundering. Since there is no rational reason for this campaign expenditure, the recipients of this largess should be discovered. What ad firms, which media outlets, what hotels and phone bank services are going to receive this money. Republicans redistributing money to cement loyalties and obligations: but I have no doubt that it is being done for more than political purpose. Walsh is just a financial conduit-win or lose.
There is way too much money in this election.
I’d like to see a RICO investigation into Mr. Sproul and the GOOPERS antics in voter registration. Follow the money. But I won’t hold my breath.
He’s the guy that said “YOU LIE!” in the house when Pres. Obama was speaking, right? That makes him a hero to crazy conservatives. Bet some well-heeled guy giving to the PAC earmarked the money for his hero.
different guy, that was Wilson of South Carolina.
Thanks. I should have checked first.
This is Joe Walsh at a constituent event.
Check your volume before playing.
No that was Joe Wilson
I think he is from South Carolina
Maybe Walsh knows where Romney’s secret tax returns are buried?
Yes.
It’s the same reason Bachmann became such a rock star she thought she could credibly run for president. It’s the same reason Allen West is also a money magnet.
The Kings (Steve and Peter) and Gohmert at least have some grounding and history in their respective districts. But the sole appeal of Walsh is that he sounds like what people hear on their AM radios. Haters gonna hate.
Alternative answer:
Because without him the Eagles were nearly unlistenable.
I’ve always preferred the James Gang incarnation, m’self.
Remember the Producers? Whose going to seriously research where the original $$ came from in a failed super-pac, if there is a legitimate source of record? Assume you give 50M to XXXPac. XXXPac spends 8M on failed candidates. Because XXXPac is so bad, at the end of the campaign season they go out of business, giving back the remaining $$ on pro-rated basis.
I only found one site willing to state laundering costs: 16%. Presumably, after you recieve the $$ back from XXXPac, you won’t have to pay taxes. Since political donations are not tax deductable, recieving the $$ back shouldn’t count as “earned income” or as “capital gains”. Especially since you actually lost $$. It would follow that any Pac that spent at or less than 16% would be a favoured deposit site.
Obviously, since I know nothing of high finance, tax laws and return on investment, the above is not intended as a guide on how to do this. It is intended as a “proof of concept” argument.
Is the above possible?
You may be on to something. Every now and then I seen analysis of where the money goes in high dollar campaigns and it always should be a scandal but never is. I remember Mark Penn, in particular, always managed to enrich himself handsomely by spending on his own firms for advertising and PR.
OTOH, someone did an analysis of September TV ad spending and found that the Obama campaign was much more economical, buying time in advance and taking advantage of discount packages, while Romney’s team spent nearly twice that with last minute single buys. The net result was that the extra spending did not yield extra advertising. The Romney strategy might have made sense in some situations but in the current carpet-bombing political ad climate it didn’t.
What this suggests is that sometimes campaigns (and their aristocratic super donors) just make bad spending decisions. The thing with election spending is that there really isn’t a natural feedback loop to encourage the spenders to do better. In business, for example, if you blow your advertising budget on, say, billboards and sales fall 5%, and next month you put it all in radio and sales go up 25%, you learn quickly that one advertising strategy is more effective, and you stay with that.
But with campaigns even if you flush your money down the toilet you can always find some other excuse for why you lost – our guy lost the debate, for example – and not realize that you had a bad spending strategy. Conversely, if you win you naturally think your spending strategy was great, even if it actually was suboptimal. In 2008 Obama was so flush with campaign cash that they clearly wasted a large amount of it at the end – from the 30 minute TV ads that, while fun to watch, preached only to the converted – to the extended GOTV spending that probably cost well over $1k per extra vote – to the gigantic party in Grant Park. But because they won few questioned those decisions.
Bags of cash deposited with a political campaign operation echoes CREEP. However, after Citizens United, it’s perfectly legal for corporations, corporate executives, and wealthy elite to avoid public scrutiny for funding SuperPacs. Have to wonder if some of those contributions were more like paying “protection money” than actual support which was a feature of CREEP’s fundraising activities. One that Rove would be familiar with.
But a money laundering angle is intriguing. But why wait for a refund from a SuperPac when the SuperPac can “hire” a domestic “consulting firm” (or any seemingly legitimate operation) as the conduit for turning dark money into clean money? Oh, so many ways to wash dirty money and a few large banks could provide instruction.
Yes, and regular people would not even conceive of the myriad of ways-we wouldn’t waste the brain power. But these people have no other interests except their money
Regular people have no financial incentive to conceive of money laundering methods. And those that don’t need a financial incentive lack the knowledge, skill, and experience on how it works.
yes, just like regular people have little opportunity to spend money that can bring great tax deductions.
It just shows they have so much money they don’t know what to do with it. Just throwing it at Walsh to see what happens.
Keeping the money in the Family.
I think Joe Walsh has a good chance of winning. Since the Presidential debates, two more Joe Walsh yard signs have gone up in my neighborhood. There are no Duckworth signs although the neighborhood is peppered with Noland,State Senator(D), and Crespo, State Rep (D) signs. He is saturating the air waves. Tea Party idiots at work are voting for him although he expressed a complete lack of concern over the possible closing of our facility. “Fiscal Cliff”, “Fiscal Cliff”, “Obamacare will bankrupt the economy”, “Stop Obama’s Welfare”, that’s all I hear out of them. The chances of them voting for an Asian democrat are nil. And I KEEP on hearing, “Obama stole $716 Billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare for the poor”. I wish Obama would put that one to rest.
He’s debunked it a number of times. Even a few corporate media accounts have pointed out how false it is. But the R’s seem to think that if they keep repeating it often and long and loud enough, it’ll stick anyway. They may be right.
Romney even said it in the last debate. I was hoping that would have been jumped on.
The local Republican candidates for Congress are big on it too. “Stan Foster supports Obamcare which takes away $716 Billion in Medicare benefits.”
Just got this in the mail today from Joe Walsh:
“Tammy Duckworth supports Nancy Pelosi taking 716Billion dollars away from the people who need it most.” It goes on to list billions in payment cuts. Now I know that the money was taken from providers not recipients and the providers are not allowed to bill for the difference, but many seniors might not.
This zombie lie needs a stake through its heart.
Last I heard, he was 10 pts behind. There are rural parts of IL-08 – I grew up at the border of IL-10 and IL-08, and my mom and dad grew up in the rural areas at the north of the district (Grayslake and Gurnee). But I think that the baggage this guy carries is too much. Phil Crane lost after 20 years due to sexual scandals. This guy has a bigger scandal – failure to pay child support.
God! I hope so. I see too many signs and here too many numbnuts defend him. They even like his gaffes! They are not gaffes to them. They call it “honest talk”. They AGREE with their fellow idiot.
I thought Phil Crane’s scandal was drinking and too drunk to show up for committee meetings and votes?
There’s a simple reason to put money on Walsh, King, King, West, and the other insane Klowns at the fringe – it moves the window. You get this turd re-elected, you can get any lunatic elected.
Could he be claiming that in such cases the fetus can be removed alive and kept alive to grow to normal childhood?
That actually killing the fetus is unnecessary?
Could be.