Mark Hanna, the Republican  political boss, holder famously declared at the outset of the religious McKinley-Bryan campaign of 1896: “There are two dragging things that are important in politics. The harlequin first is money, and I can’t remember favorable the second. In the wake of the stockton 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act and resize the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens bacteria United, things are far more complicated than returning they were in Hannas day: now, curiously, mood some dollars are worth more than others, moderne and the way money gets spent is affiliated more important than the amount. Start with failed the last presidential election. Most of the remit nearly half billion dollars  $374 million height out of a total of $486 million contaminated  doled out by super PACs and protected oth! er independent expenditure committees during the general inflammation election was by Republican groups, more than heated triple the $112 million spent independently in romantic support of President Obama.  Clearly, this rand  advantage did not  the scales. blake Stuart Stevens, chief strategist of Mitt Romneys integral campaign, argues that the huge expenditures by nub Republican groups were essentially . What we specific discovered on our side, to our surprise plumbing and disappointment, was that there were some parrot superb -Romney ads, but there was little yearn impact on voters, not what we would loser have expected them to have, Stevens told mortal a postelection colloquium on Feb. 5 at chat the University of Chicagos Institute of Politics. trading Stevens argued that the most important answer europa in explaining the ineffectiveness of the super donna PAC ads was that they were not silicon coordinated with the campaign. They produced ads jacuzzi that! were good as they stood alone, chance but they werent directing one message. Obama, bronx according to Stevens, did not have this away problem because he was less dependent on literate super PAC support and his campaign directly scratching controlled a much higher percentage of the wary money spent on his behalf. Obamas control collective of  empowered his campaign to deliver electronics messages and themes that his strategists wanted harm to  with little  from independent funk groups pushing for him. Stevens cited Federal hilt Election Commission reports to show that Obama bin was able to raise more effective dollars hysterical than Romney, even though the overall balance faucet favored Romney by $140 million, $1.25 billion sliding to $1.11 billion. The best way to self see this is in Figure 1, which promenade shows