Discover and share stories

of adventure, connection, and change making.

64 people think this is good


  1. {{}}
  1. {{fields.video_link.url}}

Ready to post! You’ve uploaded the maximum number of images.

Your video is ready to post!

Oops! Nice pic, but it’s just not our (file) type. Please try uploading a .jpg or .png image.

Well, this is embarrassing. Something went wrong when posting your comment. Care to try again?

That image is too large. Maximum size is 6MB.

Please enter a valid URL from YouTube or Vimeo.

Embedding has been disabled for this video.


Posting comment...

  • Michael LeRoy

    This is good stuff!

    Good presidents bring in big bucks!

  • tryanmax

    Interesting to look back on a year later. Seems direct contributions got America the man they wanted, but not the policies.

  • Starfleet12341

    .Debate helps people focus their attention on the matters at-hand, but we have to remember that the reason it exists, is to benefit the people of this country, especially the most socially and financially vulnerable ones.

  • Brian Jacobs

    Wait a minute. Goldman Sachs has given more money to Obama over the past 4-5 years than they have to Romney.

  • Rootstrikers

    Outside influence from wealthy individuals is definitely crippling our democracy, but the point of this infographic isn't contained to just super pacs—it's a glimpse into the funding sources of both candidates, including direct contributions. It's worth asking how these favors will affect each candidate's policies if he takes office, and knowing now what special interests and individuals are already invested in the candidates. To dig deeper, I highly recommend downloading the app we used for the data: And to look more closely at super pac spending, this tool is also pretty nifty:

    • WWAfoo

      We do not have a democracy. When will everyone figure this out? USA is a constitutional republic. In fact many of our founders (the smart ones) warned about the dangers of democracy (mob rule). JUST SAYIN'

  • Joe Hewitt

    I'm not sure if I agree that Super PAC fundraising sources is a way to indicate whether or not a tax policy will work or not. Wouldn't it be better to use specific parts of Mitt's proposed plans to prove the point? I'm sure it's in there. One of the parts of the President's strategy is to equate money with "bad". Wouldn't it be a more practical approach be to equate the specifics of Mitt's plan to "bad"? And isn't the real issue of the infographic above that the existence Super PACs is bad?