![]()
- Winners and Losers in Obama's Corporate Tax Plan
- More Asset-Buying Depends on Economy: BOE
- Greece Readies Debt Swap Under Bailout Deal
- Stocks Sputter as Investors Seek Next Catalyst
- RBS Hurt by Greek Charges But Pays Bonuses
- Nissan to Recall 250,000 Cars Globally
- T-Mobile USA Wants to Grow Again
- Greek Writedown Hits Commerzbank Earnings
- Wife of UK's Tony Blair Sues Over Phone Hacking
MOST SHARED
- RBS Hurt by Greek Charges But Pays Bonuses
- China Internet Firm Qihoo Says Citron Allegations False
- T-Mobile USA Wants to Grow Again
- European Shares Rise; Natixis, RBS Up on Results
- Nissan to Recall 250,000 Cars Globally
- German February IFO Index Rises 4th Month in Row
- More Asset-Buying Depends on Economy: Bank of England
- Greek Writedown Hits Commerzbank Earnings
- Japan's Okada Says Yen Still Strong, Hopes it Weakens
- Herbalife Shares Gain on Obesity Play
‘Super PAC’ for Gingrich to Get $5 Million Infusion
The New York Times
![]() |
Getty Images Former U.S. Speaker of the House and Republican candidate for president Newt Gingrich speaks during the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference on June 16, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana. |
The supporter, Dr. Miriam Adelson, is the wife of Sheldon Adelson, a longtime Gingrich friend and a patron who this month contributed $5 million to the super PAC, Winning Our Future. Dr. Adelson’s check will bring the couple’s total contributions to Winning Our Future to $10 million, a figure that could substantially neutralize the millions of dollars already being spent in Florida by Mr. Romney and Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting him.
![]() |
Mr. Adelson’s initial check financed a barrage of negative ads against Mr. Romney in South Carolina, helping Mr. Gingrich to an upset victory in Saturday’s Republican primary there. But those attacks, which focused on Mr. Romney’s wealth and private equity career, also drew condemnation from many conservatives, who said Mr. Gingrich’s allies were undercutting free-market capitalism and amplifying class-warfare arguments being made by Democrats and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.
In making the couple’s second $5 million contribution, Dr. Adelson expressed a wish to Winning Our Future officials that the money be used “to continue the pro-Newt message,” one of the people familiar with the contribution said, rather than attack Mr. Romney.
The Adelsons’ contributions on Mr. Gingrich’s behalf illustrate how rapidly a new era of unlimited political money is reshaping the rules of presidential politics and empowering individual donors to a degree unseen since before the Watergate scandals.
The wealth of a single couple has now leveled the playing field in two critical primary states for Mr. Gingrich, a candidate who ended September more than $1 million in debt, finished out of the running in Iowa and New Hampshire and, unlike Mr. Romney, has yet to attract the broad network of hard-money donors and bundlers that traditionally propel presidential campaigns.
The contribution also underscored how the advantages built by Mr. Romney’s campaign, including a potent get-out-the-vote operation in Florida and tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions raised in chunks of no more than $2,500, are being challenged by new forces, including the high-profile debates that have elevated Mr. Gingrich and the emergence of new campaign finance rules in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling.
That decision paved the way for super PACs, including the kind that have spent more than $30 million in the Republican primary so far: political committees run by each candidate’s former aides and financed by a few wealthy supporters. Because they are technically independent of the candidate, the groups can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, rendering less relevant the limits that Congress imposed in the 1970s on contributions to candidates.
The decision has been hailed by advocates of looser campaign regulation, who see Citizens United as a victory for robust debate and a long overdue roll-back of years of encroachment on political speech. But critics warn that the new rules have reopened avenues for the very wealthy to exert undue influence over campaigns and candidates.












