Can Money Buy Mitt Romney Love?

By: Tricia Erickson, author, Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?

It is no secret that Mitt Romney’s 2012 strategy was to come out “Free and Strong” in New Hampshire. You see, in socially moderate New Hampshire, Mitt would have an expected foundation of supporters who would be only too happy to overlook his pro-abortion and anti-family record in Massachusetts, his “Fee Fee” pro-tax reputation, as well as his membership in an anti-Christian church. Romney also sought to buy his influence among Christian and conservative organizations.

Romney may drive a beat up pickup from his $3.54 million lake house in New Hampshire, trying to appeal to voters as a regular guy, but make no mistake about it; his wealth is what is driving his campaign.

After the 2008 campaign, Romney was able to keep his campaign apparatus intact by renaming his Commonwealth PAC as well as his five state committees (located in primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Alabama) the Free and Strong America PAC. Each of the state committees are subject to local statues regarding contributions. 

According to Sasha Issenberg of Politico, “That means Romney can collect corporate checks in Alabama, unlimited donations from individual backers in Iowa and regulated donations in South Carolina and New Hampshire. The arrangement provides Romney’s most loyal and generous backers with multiple opportunities to grease the gears of his political machine.” By bypassing the $2,300 federal cap for individual donations, Romney financiers can contribute up to $250,000. This kind of money can certainly serve to buy endorsements.

In 2006, Brian C. Mooney of the Boston Globe reported that Romney’s PAC donated to 400 candidates in 36 states and 300 GOP state, county and local committees. He donated $49,500 to the Michigan GOP, $20,000 to the New Hampshire GOP and even $5,000 to South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s campaign committee even though he was not up for reelection until 2010.

Mooney further stated, “The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect role of raising Romney’s profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year”.  In 2007, Brian further stated, “The largest amount of Commonwealth PAC money went to candidates and party committees in the following key states: Iowa and Michigan ($276,165), New Hampshire ($164,150), South Carolina – the first southern state with a primary ($144,500) and Alabama – which moved up its primary to February ($143,500).”

With the recent endorsement of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, it is important to note that in the 2008 election, Ken Silverstein of Harper’s Magazine reported, “In South Carolina, a key primary state, Romney’s PAC donated $9,500 to the Palmetto state’s GOP, $500 to South Carolina Citizens for Life, $1,000 to South Carolina’s Club for Growth, $1,000 to South Carolinians for Responsible Government, $2,000 to South Carolina Victory and $2,000 to Charleston school board candidates”. (reference: Silverstein, Ken "Making Mitt Romney: How to Fabricate a Conservative (Harper's Magazine)." Editorial. Harpers.org. Harper's Magazine, Nov. 2007. Web. 15 Mar. 2010.)

It is quite apparent that Mitt Romney is “buying” the election. Further substantiation is the Gingrich ad campaign wagered by Romney’s money spent on negative ads. If Newt had the inclination and the money to do the same, because of the massive evidence against Mitt Romney from his uncanny beliefs to his “true” political record, Newt would likely have won the Iowa Caucus. 

Romney’s money was also used to buy support in other areas, particularly the conservative media.

Ask yourself if you have heard the major hosts or anyone on Fox News Radio criticize Romney’s abysmal pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage record, discuss his numerous flip-flops, or his lackluster economic record in Massachusetts. Why not? The hosts have something in common – their shows are all air on Premiere Radio Networks, Inc., the number one radio network in the nation.

Premiere is a subsidiary of media giant Clear Channel Communications, Inc. In 2006 (gearing up for the 2008 election) Clear Channel announced that Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. and Bain Capital Partners, LLC had agreed to acquire Clear Channel. The deal was finalized in July 2008 for $17.9 billon.

CNNMoney.com reported in 2007 that “Almost 43 percent of the Romney portfolio is tied up in private equity investments through Bain Capital Management.”

America is now experiencing a Wall Street-like purchase of the 2012 GOP election.

Who Says Money Can’t Buy Mitt Love?

###

About the author: 

New Book! Former Mormon Bishop’s Daughter and Political Commentator Reveals Real Story on Mitt Romney!

Tricia Erickson

Tricia Erickson, (a Conservative) was the first Damage Control/Crisis Management Specialist in the country, as stated by Barbara Walters on the show "20/20". Tricia is also a political consultant and on-air contributor. She has opined on many local and national news and entertainment TV and radio shows/networks. She is also the author of the new book “Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States of America.”

Tricia purposely became less active on-the-air in recent years and has not necessarily sought to participate in on-air interviews. However, because of the concern in her heart that for the first time in history, a prominent Mormon could achieve the Office Of The Presidency, she feels a responsibility to educate the public, both in the US and abroad, regarding what this potential Mormon President could truly mean for America. She is an expert on the well-masked cult of Mormonism and a former Mormon Bishop’s daughter who left the church in her early 20’s. 

From a political stand point, she believes it is imperative to reveal the facts on Romney’s political record, in opposition to what the Romney camp will shift the voters to believe in order to achieve the Presidency.

We have by now experienced with the current President Obama what smooth words and entertainment imagery, as opposed to substance, can bring to the highest office in the land. Will we make the same mistake again?