Sheldon Adelson. Photo by Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images
KEITH OLBERMANN: “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as long as it’s doable, I’m going to do it.” Those the words of the man who is almost singlehandedly keeping Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary, Sheldon Adelson.
In our fourth story — according to financial disclosures that campaigns and super PACs submitted to the FEC yesterday, it appears the Gingrich campaign is not the only one, not by any means, whose super PAC is relying on just the one sugar daddy to keep it afloat. Five people contributing about 25 percent of all super PAC money.
Mitt Romney still leading the way when it comes to cash. His campaign brought in $6.5 million in January. Fortunately for him, his super PAC, “Restore Our Future,” brought in another 6.6. With Romney’s Wall Street connections, the bulk of the money came from 23 donors who gave $100,000 or more. Three of them gave half a million or more.
Despite his recent absence from the trail, the Gingrich campaign pulled in $5.6 million. Just like Romney, the super PAC for Gingrich out-raised him. It pulled in nearly 11. Ninety-one percent of which was donated by the aforementioned Adelson and his wife Miriam, who donated $5 million apiece. Take the money and get a haircut.
Ron Paul’s campaign brought in an impressive $4.5 million, his super PAC about 4.2. For all the talk about Paul’s army of supporters, though, his super PAC appears to be no different than the others. With $1.7 million of the Paul super PAC’s January collection coming from this man, PayPal founder Peter Thiel.
Rounding out the Republican field? Rick Santorum, whose campaign also brought in 4.5. An impressive feat, since his actual campaign did not raise a million dollars in any quarter last year. His super PAC brought in an additional $2.1 million, including $699,000 from Mr. “Aspirin-Between-the-Knees” himself, Foster Friess. But the largest contributor to Santorum’s super PAC was the Louisiana energy executive William J. Doré who contributed $1 million.
Joining me now on this, Politico’s reporter, Dave Levinthal. Thanks for your time tonight, Dave.
DAVE LEVINTHAL: My pleasure. Good to be with you.
OLBERMANN: The Adelson quote, it sounds like the old Alfred Hitchcock observation that what terrified him was not a murderer like in his movie “Psycho,” but the guy who stands there and very politely says to you, “I’m terribly sorry. I hate to do this, but a man’s family has got to eat so I have to rob you and kill you now. Sorry.”
I mean, what — this — this — I — I — “if it’s doable I’m going to do it” remark, it’s almost more outlandish than the whole process. Isn’t it?
LEVINTHAL: You have people on the right. You have people on the left, who are all saying, “Eh, you know, we don’t really like the rules.”
You have Barack Obama on one side, who has been against this entire situation ever since the Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission came down. What’s he doing? A couple of weeks ago says, “Hey, you know, big-dollar donors, get behind my super PAC.”
On the other side, Mitt Romney’s saying, “I hate super PACs. They’re horrible.” But his prescription is — “Well, let’s funnel all this unlimited money to the campaigns directly.”
The real situation here is that we’ve looked at the numbers that came out just last night, new financial filings from all the candidates in the super PACs. What’s remarkable is that the super PACs, in many cases, are either raising or spending more money than the candidates themselves. It’s a situation that would have been utterly inconceivable just four years ago during the presidential election.
OLBERMANN: Let me correct this statistical — in a cascade of stats that we gave you, one statistical one. The Ron Paul super PAC pulled in $2.4 million. I think I had it at 4.2.
Let me get back to the questions with you, Dave. The Republicans have made the argument that money going to these super PACs would still wind up in the campaigns, even if there weren’t super PACs, even if there hadn’t been Citizens United. Only we’d have less transparency. Is that sophistry or is there some truth in there?
LEVINTHAL: Well, it’s not true, insofar as the current laws are concerned. If you are an individual and you want to write a check to a presidential campaign, you can give 2,500 bucks per election. So, 25 in the primary, 25 in the general. But if you have a million dollars or $10 million, if the case is, to donate to a political entity, now — because of the Citizens United decision that’s come forth — you can go ahead and you can write as big a check as you possibly want. So, it’s a real disconnect in terms of the amount of money that campaigns can raise and the amount of money that political super PACs and these types of political action committees can raise.
It’s a situation that, when the Citizens United decision came down a couple of years ago, probably the Supreme Court justices themselves were not entirely sure how it was going to play out in reality, and the reality that we see now is very profound, and you have what’s surely going to be the most expensive presidential election in the history of the United States right here and now.
OLBERMANN: Funny how the Supreme Court justices didn’t see how it played out, when laymen idiots like myself were able to see how it played out, and we may have been underestimating that — if a Sheldon Adelson could come out and, say, donate up to $100 million to put Newt Gingrich in the White House. Is there any extrapolation from that? Is there any — my God, maybe mathematical formula at this point — to guess how much Republican backers would in fact put in, whoever the candidate was, to the general election?
LEVINTHAL: It’s impossible to say precisely, just because there are so much presidential election left before the November elections — but you’re looking at a Republican versus Republican fight here, and you’re already having tens upon tens of millions of dollars being spent just to kind of shoot at each other.
Wait until you have a Democrat versus a Republican shooting at each other, and you can expect the people who feel very passionately about Republican politics and, conversely, very passionately about Democratic politics and have the money to put behind their personal philosophies — they’re going to spend it, because they can spend it, even if they have to swallow hard and do it when they don’t like to, such as President Obama, in making a clarion call to his supporters to say, “Get behind my super PAC that’s supporting me and start donating because, hey, if we don’t do this — if we don’t play by the rules that have been given to us — then we’re kind of going to get our butts kicked.”
OLBERMANN: So, what are the predictions? Are there any indications where that, in fact, is going to go, that super PAC, “Priorities USA Action,” because — before he reversed course and said, “Yeah, okay, let’s work with it” — it collected in January $59,000, which would be the money that would fall out of Adelson’s pocket as he wrote the checks to Newt Gingrich’s super PAC.
LEVINTHAL: Well, that super PAC is in a world of hurt, or at least, was in a world of hurt prior to the president actually coming out and saying, “It’s okay to donate to the super PAC that’s supporting me.” And it’s a super PAC that’s run by two of his former White House staffers, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, but they have absolutely had no traction whatsoever up until now to fundraising.
So you better believe, though, that when some guys on the Democratic side — who can write big-dollar checks, now that they feel liberated to do so — that they are going to do so and that the gap that exists right now between Democratic super PACs and Republican-backing super PACs, that is slowly going to come — maybe even quickly — come shorter and shorter, and narrower and narrower.
OLBERMANN: Dave Levinthal, Politico. Great thanks for your time tonight. We appreciate it.
LEVINTHAL: Thank you.
