TadpoleJackson said:
Adinnieken said:
No that isn't at all proof of any fact.
The fact of the matter is that SuperPACs raised the majority of funds used to elect Romney. The Romney campaign and the Republican party actually had little to contribute. By comparison, the Obama campaign raised the majority of its funds, with a few SuperPACs contributing.
Had the Supreme Court ruled against Citizens United, there would have been a lot less money in the campaign. There would have been far fewer negative ads, and more issue oriented ads.
Had Romney had more integrity with his positions, had he been more relatable and therefore more likeable, he could have won the election and the Citizens United ruling would have been a major factor.
|
No, the Romney campaign at times was outraising the Obama campaign in donations
|
Romney's fundraising haul, from joint efforts between Team Romney and the Republican National Committee (RNC), marks the second straight month that they have passed the $100 million mark and is likely to intensify concerns among Obama’s reelection team — who raised $75 million in July — that they will be outpaced by the GOP’s fundraising push.
...
The [Romney] campaign said that more than 94 percent of all donations received last month were for $250 or less. Those 600,627 contributions totaled $25.7 million of the haul.
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242325-romney-outraises-obama-for-third-month-in-a-row
|
Then it was spending on advertising.
In one of them, the SuperPACs for Romney were doing all the spending, where as on the Obama side, it was the campaign itself that was doing all the spending.
Which only makes the situation worse. Because if the Romney campaign was able to raise more, and spend less on advertising, it meant that they were able to spend more stump speeches. Where as Obama was doing the vast majority of spending in his campaign, which meant not only was he financing the majority of ads, but also having to pay for those stump speeches.
