Sheldon Adelson and the Top 5 Super PAC Facts the Media Covers Up

by John Nolte

 
 Now that billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson (pictured) and his wife Miriam have donated $10 million to Restoring Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC, and are promising up to a hundred million more, the media is in the early stages of yet another politically-orchestrated and completely phony freak-out. Yes, suddenly, the very same media, that during 2008 had no qualms whatsoever about the hundreds of millions of dollars in union money spent to elect Obama, are suddenly all hand-wringy over "outside money and influence" on presidential elections.

The corrupt media calls the bogeyman "Citizens United," and earlier this week I laid out the reasons why the MSM so loathes these super PACs. 

Today, I give you five facts the media covers up about super PACs:

1. Just like a campaign, Super PACs are required to publicly disclose any donor who contributes any amount over $200.

2. You wouldn't know it from the media coverage, but… Yes, Virginia, there are pro-Obama super PACs currently hitting Romney and they're also allowed to legally level the playing field by finding their own Sheldon Adelson.

3. A majority of super PAC money comes from individual donations, not corporations.

4. Super PACs are allowed to accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and, yes, unions.

5. Other than transparency, there is absolutely no difference between a media company and a super PAC. Super PACs use unlimited funds from individuals and corporations to openly push a political agenda. Media companies like CNN, the Washington Post, Politico, Comedy Central, and NBC, also use unlimited funds to push a political agenda -- only they lie about their motives.

Oh, and let me add a sixth…

6. Using this non-profit and that foundation, George Soros has likely contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to leftist causes throughout the last few years, but the corrupt media has never made him as famous as Adleson and Joe Ricketts, have they?

This media-driven push against super PACs is something much worse than a partisan campaign to aid Obama's re-election (though it most certainly is that). Above all, it is the media fighting to limit that most sacred of American rights, unlimited political speech.

The corrupt media wants this terrain all to itself -- wants to be the only player in town allowed to use unlimited funds to push a political agenda. And they will do anything to retain this unholy monopoly, up to and including lying and coordinating attacks meant to bully and blackmail private citizens.

If I had billions of dollars like Adelson, I'd use my God-given Constitutional right and every penny I had to retire President Obama.

Moreover, I would also consider it my patriotic duty to use my wealth to purchase every mainstream media outlet in America, fire EVERYONE (with a handful of notable exceptions), and then (with the proper permits, of course) burn it all to the ground on pay-per-view -- where you can bet I'd make all that money back and then some.   

The media is the most corrupted institution allowed to operate legally in this great country of ours. And anything that diminishes, competes with, undermines, or puts them out of business is the Lord's work.

God bless America.

God bless the First Amendment (that does not come with an asterisk)

God bless the super PAC.

Big Journalism

Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs

by John Nolte

 

 

 To begin with, you can't look at the mainstream media as a biased or out-of-touch entity. Instead, you have to look at the media for what it really is: a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists who use objectivity and a near-monopoly to control the news and information-narrative all in an effort to damage the Right and promote the Left.

As we've seen since the rise of the Internet and the media criticism that has become much of its muse, the media cannot be reasoned with, made to see the error of its ways, or shamed into doing its job honestly. This is a corrupt institution and if you love your country,  the only moral approach in dealing with it should be to do whatever you can to put it out of business.

And "business" is why the media fears the Supreme Court decision known as "Citizens United," a First Amendment victory that allows individuals and corporations -- through the use of the dreaded super PAC -- the right to spend as much money as they want on electioneering. Because the "business" of the media is not the dissemination of information for the public good or even commercial profit, but rather the furthering of leftist causes, what most terrifies the media is the competition for the narrative these super PACS will hopefully create.

But to understand how terrified the media is of super PACs, you have to examine just how hypocritical and un-American their objections are.

First off, at its very core, the media is objecting to free and unlimited political speech -- the very thing protected by the very first Amendment. The media's outrage that there are now no longer restrictions on how much money a company or individual can spend to further a political cause, is the same as expressing outrage that that most sacred of American rights -- unlimited political speech -- is no longer limited by a tyrannical government.  

But most hypocritically glaring is the fact that Obama, the Left, and the media (but I repeat myself) have always enjoyed many of the very same rights "Citizens United" has now given to everyone -- but they wanted those rights all to themselves.  

Prior to "Citizens United," a private or public sector union (funded with our tax dollars) could pretty much spend as much as they desired on electioneering (almost 100% of it benefiting the left) -- a right not extended to the company that hired these union workers or those among us not in a union.

Fact: In 2008, unions spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Obama.

Fact : In 2008, you heard almost no media outcry against all of that "outside money affecting elections." Today, that's all you hear, especially after a Republican victory like the one last week in Wisconsin.

Prior to "Citizens United," the only corporations, big or small, allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to push a political agenda were … media companies.  

ABC, NPR, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, Politico, The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, and on and on, are all corporations, and in some cases, part of gargantuan multi-national corporations -- and yet before "Citizens United" not a single one lived under political spending restrictions.

In other words, while NBC could spend billions through the Nightly News, the Today Show, its entertainment programming like Saturday Night Live, and MSNBC to openly shill for leftist causes, every other corporation could not. While Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a huge corporation (Viacom) amplifying their furthering of leftist causes, every other individual in the country had their free speech restricted.  

Furthermore, if you were a General Electric and owned all or part of NBC, you could openly use that branch of your corporation to spend as much money as was possible to push for left-wing causes.

Think about this: pre-"Citizens United," the system was so immoral and gamed, that the purchase of a newspaper, television network, or cable news outlet is what gave you a workaround the campaign finance laws.

Thanks to "Citizens United," though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation's politics.  

And this is why the media so loathes "Citizens United" and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.  

This is also why the media's reactions to super PACs has been panic, lies, threats, and bullying.

The media is not only openly coordinating its attacks on super PACs (with the Obama campaign), but it's also coordinating attacks on those who dare run or donate to super PACs. Politico's Maggie Haberman outing a Romney super PAC donor's silly misdemeanor criminal record isn't reporting, it's blackmail and sending a message to others that there's a price to pay for muscling into the business the corrupt media once had a monopoly on.  

Rather shamelessly, the media is now openly lying about the effect "Citizens United" had on Wisconsin -- lying through its teeth.

The New York Times, CNN, NBC, NPR,  Politico, Comedy Central, unions, and all the rest are nothing more than super PACs, and now they're mad as hell that everyone's allowed in on the game. 

 Big Journalism