Political is Definitely Heating Up Early


VoteSen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is a candidate for President of the United States as of 4/7/15, joining colleague Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the early announcers club. But before he could even make an official declaration on the matter a PAC announced an ad flight opposing the Paul campaign.

The flight will be directed at early primary/caucus states.

According to a report in Politico, the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, is spending $1M on television to go after Sen. Paul.

The money will be directed to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Cruz campaign already has planned buys in three of those states, excluding New Hampshire.

Paul is the first to attract major negative spending.

According to the report, FSPA objects to Paul’s stance on Iran, declaring that Paul does not consider Iran to be a major threat and saying he stands with President Obama when it comes to US policy toward Iran.

Fox News Channel is getting almost a third of the buy — $300,000.

As for Paul, he will have two campaigns to finance. In addition to his run for the White House, he is also running for re-election to his seat in the Senate, on the chance he is unable to secure the Republican presidential nomination.

RBR-TVBR observation: Have you ever heard of FSPA? We hadn’t.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the PAC was granted its exempt 501(c)(4) status in September of 2008. Between then and December 2012, it spent a grand total of $111,407 as reported to the FEC.

Now, with roughly ten months to go before the first vote is cast in a primary, it is committing $1M.

If a PAC with a history of modest spending is coming off the sidelines this early with a seven-figure spend in the intramural phase of the election, we think it is safe to predict another record-setting political advertising election cycle. The only question is how far out of the water the old record will be blown.


  1. This is great for radio and TV, but for everyone else, not so much. All we are going to get is attack ads; where we are given multiple (usually overblown and overstated) reasons not to vote for “the other guy.” What we are not got to get are reasons to vote FOR someone. What a waste of money… And people wonder why the voter turnout is so low….

  2. Attack Ads should be verboten by all of the media. The problem is the money loss if you don’t run the damned things, also known as greed. It’s always great when these elections come about, especially for those stations where hard times are hitting. Will the media ever get humane and tell the hate mongers to buzz off?
    Of course not, attack ads, oh, well, we need the money…or we don’t really need it, but it does make for a great bottom line.
    Stations survive without these ads during non-election years, so why can’t any of you guys “man-up,” and tell the Koch brothers and the others who are buying our legislators through these ads: “No more, thank you. We do want a legitimate democracy.”
    By accepting these venomous attacks you become part of the problem, and, as Scott Gilbert has written: we need to have ads that make voters want to vote FOR someone.
    God Bless America is okay, but sometimes the Lord isn’t paying attention to DC and it’s conniving lobbyists. They promote anti-American agendas for the sake of profit, and ideologies that are turning our nation into an oligarchy. This is thanks to the media that rub their hands together with delight and dollar signs dancing in their eyes.
    They are just as bad as the attack ad clients.
    Check your transmitters, you guys.

Comments are closed.