Americans for Prosperity, the big-bucks boyos bankrolled by billionaires David and Charles Koch, is in for a dollar already this election cycle.
The independent expenditure group, which spent over $36 million on federal elections in 2012, has just launched a seven-figure ad campaign targeting three Democratic U.S. Senate incumbents.
Press release via Politico’s Playbook:
“Americans for Prosperity, the nation’s largest grassroots champion for health care freedom, announced the launch of a multimillion dollar ad effort holding three US senators accountable for their support of the President’s health care law. TV ads will begin airing this week that put pressure on Senator Hagan in North Carolina, Senator Landrieu in Louisiana, and … Senator Shaheen in New Hampshire … The ads will run in major media markets for the next three weeks. … Last fall, AFP spent over $16 million on a series of TV ads holding politicians accountable for … ObamaCare, and thanking others who have stood against the law.”
Here’s the ad running in the Granite State:
Be honest, Scott Brown (R-Elsewhere): Are you loving this or what?
Also of note is this Politico piece about social conservatives “raising millions of dollars, coordinating their political spending and assiduously courting megadonors.”
Say it with us: Let the wild Whatever-Billion-Dollar rumpus begin!
Campaign Outsider 
If the poor truck could talk, it would say, “Dear god, no.”
The god part is good for New Hampshire, yeah?
________________________________________
Let’s hope the commonsense side of Granite State voters fuels a widespread repulsion at the thought of being bought out. We’re not for sale. That’s what makes our presidential primary so important. And Scott Brown remains not just a Massachusetts import, and thus suspect on many counts, but a failure as well.
He ain’t one of us, period.
Dicey policies and failed initiatives often mean that attention gets focused on those races where attention can make the difference. Money is part of the focus, and since it is the Koch’s to spend, who are we to say that we can’t
But, is the money that the Kochs are putting into the mix any different than the money that George Soros pumped into the 2008 election?
No? Didn’t think it was. And we didn’t here the the left complaining about the influx of cash into THEIR coffers to spend on THEIR causes.
But look at it this way. Soros made his money speculating on the downfalls of corporations and nations. The Kochs have made their money on exploring and developing sources of oil that eventually generates the electrons that allow us to have light and heat and electric vehicles and this very blog.
Neither is particularly noble, but at least one side is not making their money by betting on the misery of others.
George Soros largely sat out the 2012 elections, while the best estimates show that the Kochs spent an estimated $60 million, while Sheldon Adelson spent as much as $98 million.
Thank’s, Mikey, for the information…
But, since it is their money to do with what they will, what’s the difference between Soros’ money and the Kochs’ money, or Adlesons? Money in someone’s hands is money in someone’s hands. And as long as they follow the laws faithfully in its distribution, there should be no complaints.
Is the objection that they are “conservative” and Soros is not? Is the objection that they are giving more than the liberals can match?
And lets’ get back to where Soro’s GOT his money…betting on the failure of Greece and the US dollar. Is money gained by betting on others’ miserly lest tainted than that gained providing a commodity that people actual want and use?
If you’d like to discuss the re-institution of meaningful campaign finance reform and the reversal of the Citizens United decision — by all means, let’s do it. Agreed?
…or would campaign finance reform put too big a dent in “the nation’s largest grassroots champion for health care freedom”?
If you can find a loop-hole free way of implementing meaningful campaign finance reform, it’s not a bad idea.
Public financing might work, but, as always, the devil is in the details.
Now, as for Citizens United case, I would suggest reading the majority’s opinion and follow the legal trails that are revealed. The decision is based on at least a century of jurisprudence and, it has the effect if treating ALL equally, giving the corporation the same rights as the “union”, usually a corporation, too, in making its political voice heard.
You’ll argue that the minority opinion should be weighed. To which I will respond: Not only was it weighed but it was found lacking by the majority of the court. And since the majority of the court chose not to accept the dissenting views, from a legal standpoint, the dissent is irrelevant and the Citizens United decision is the law of the land and entitled to the deference of all lower courts and due deference by the Supreme court as a matter that has already been litigated.
“Unions!”
“Benghazi!”
Scott Brown is the definition of someone seduced by fame, without any qualifications to support it.
Sort-of like Barack Obama.
Not even close.