Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Recent Monthly Filings Show Super PACs Spent $30 Million on Federal Races in July 2012

MapLight has run an analysis of independent expenditures made from Jan. 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012 by so-called super PACs to influence congressional and presidential races in the 2012 election cycle.

In July 2012, super PACs that file monthly reports spent $29.6 million on independent expenditures across the country. Of that total, $25.9 million (88 percent) was spent by just five super PACs. Figures from super PACs that file quarterly reports will not be available until October.

From Jan 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012, super PACs spent $167 million on political expenditures. Click here to download a spreadsheet of independent expenditures by super PAC with filters by state, contest, party, month, and year.

Top Five Super PACs by Spending in July 2012

  • AMERICAN CROSSROADS – $8,569,152
  • RESTORE OUR FUTURE, INC. – $8,107,287
  • CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION – $3,941,503
  • MAJORITY PAC – $2,777,573
  • PRIORITIES USA ACTION – $2,552,327

Super PACs continue to raise and spend millions of dollars to sway voters in the 2012 election cycle. A recent Supreme Court ruling allowed for the creation of so-called super PACs, which can collect unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, and unions to fund political expenditures.

© Copyright 2013 MapLight

About the Author

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Elected officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws. This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal.

MapLight connects data on campaign contributions, politicians, votes, industries, companies, and more to show patterns of influence that could never be seen before. 

We currently research money and influence in the...

510-868-0894

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.