(Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

BY SCOTT MACDONALD

ANCHOR ZACH TOOMBS

Monday brought the monthly FEC filing deadline for the 2012 presidential candidates, as the campaigns revealed their fundraising numbers for January. But the real story is in the funds of independent political action committees. Here’s the New York Times’ take.

“Weeks of intense campaigning in the early nominating states have left the leading Republican presidential candidates increasingly dependent on outside ‘super PACs.’ The spending reports revealed the breadth and power of super PACs as the campaign hits a critical and perhaps decisive period.”

A Super PAC works with a few key advantages and disadvantages — although no limits are placed on donations, Super PACs are prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns.

The numbers are similar for the four Republican candidates’ campaigns, all of which raised between $4.5 and $6.5 million dollars. But Super PACs backing each candidate had wildly different numbers. The pro-Romney group Restore Our Future raised $6.6 million. The pro-Gingrich Super PAC, Winning Our Future, hauled in $11 million, much of that coming from one donor.

The pro-Santorum Red, White, and Blue Fund and the pro-Paul Endorsing Liberty had much less, coming up with over $2 million each for the month. Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation explains why these patterns are unique to 2012.

“What we’re seeing this time is a very few well-heeled donors, by giving money to Super PACs, can really fuel a candidate and keep them going long before they would have had to drop out in the past.”

Super PACs have gotten plenty of criticism during this election season. It’s the first time they’ve played a role in a presidential race. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that such organizations were protected by the First Amendment. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich talks about the ruling.

“The 5-4 ruling said essentially that corporations are people, and for the first time in over a hundred years, allowed them to use corporate profit to influence our elections.”

Perhaps the ruling’s most prominent critic is President Barack Obama, who openly denounced it in his 2010 State of the Union address. But ignoring Super PAC fundraising potential would put his campaign at a severe disadvantage. So as CBS News reports, Obama changed his mind on using such organizations earlier this month.

"The president’s campaign manager signaled that they’re going after the big money, too. . . This isn’t surprising, given that Super PACs supporting Republicans have raised $50 million already.”

Mitt Romney, who the Atlantic Wire says is, quote, “Perhaps benefitting the most from his super PAC,” talked to MSNBC in December and spoke of his discontent with the system.

“They set up these new entities, which I think is a disaster, by the way. Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign system. We ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these Super PACs.”

This sentiment was echoed in an op-ed by Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson published last Sunday.

“The perception that political operatives and wealthy donors are skirting contribution limits creates the aura of corruption and even criminality. The paradox is that campaign financial “reform,” far from allaying public suspicion of the political system, deepens it.”

On the other side, Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll wrote earlier this month that criticism of Super PACs ignores that political fundraising has always been secretive and the attack ads they buy have always been nasty.

“When were campaigns ever sweetness and light? The short answer is, never. Super PAC critics refuse to credit voters with a memory of presidential campaigns even in the past decade, which managed to plumb the depths of negativity without the high court ruling.”

As for 2012, political commentators don’t all agree that the candidate with the most money will necessarily win. Al Hunt, the executive Washington editor for Bloomberg, gives his take.

“Money is not going to decide the outcome here. It can still be an advantage, the advantage is still to Romney, but Santorum has leveled the playing field.”