Mitt Romney Was Right That Obama Would Do Anything To Win In 2012

I haven't been blogging lately since I've been focusing on myself and my career. However, I wish to take time out of my busy life to raise the alarm on the fact that President Obama trampled on the Constitution and the rights of people all across the country in order to win. Mitt Romney was right in saying that Obama will "do anything" to get re-elected in order to hang onto power. 

And we are just now finding out far Obama went to win that second term.

Let us review the list of illegal activies the Obama Administration engaged into to be reelected. 

IRS Scandal 

We know that many tea party groups were targeted by the IRS as early as 2010 and that the targeting continued throughout 2011 and 2012. It now appears that nearly 500 conservative groups were subjected to invasive review and intimidation. The impact this had on the 2012 election is incalculable. In fact, Dean Chambers writing for the Washington Examiner explains how "the president's administration engaged in a systematic and wide-scale suppression of Tea Party and conservative activity and votes, via the IRS targeting of those groups" in crucial states of the 2012 election which lead to the approximate suppression of "at least 7 million Romney votes across the country." 

I personally believe these groups were investigated after Obama saw how successful and powerful these Tea Party groups were in the aftermath of the devastating 2010 elections and decided to target these groups in preparation for his 2012 reelection campaign.We are now learning that the targeting of these groups wasn't done by a few rouge IRS agents but was intentional campaign waged by senior officials in the IRS and the White House. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, is now being grilled by Congress as to the extent of her knowledge and participation of these activities. I believe Congress will also investigate White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough who are both close to Obama in his administration. If Congress continues to pursue this matter, I believe all roads will lead to Obama and they must investigate whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target conservative groups in order to win the 2012 election.  I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of targeting of these Tea Party groups.

Mitt Romney Donors Targeted

Not only were conservative Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS but individuals were also targeted by the IRS for simply donating money to the Romney campaign. The IRS harassed these individuals by auditing them and in some cases, conducting more than one audits on the same individual.  For example, Billionaire businessman Frank VanderSloot, a major Mitt Romney super PAC donor who was subjected to three federal agency audits after his name appeared on the Obama's campaign website. He claims that other wealthy Romney donors were harrased by the Obama administration via IRS audits. 

There is a very good reason to be suspicious about Obama and the IRS with regards to the harrassment of Romney donors:

The Obama campaign itself listed 15 large Romney campaign donors and bundlers on their site, which directly lead to the harassment by lefts of those donors. And, by no coincidence, many of them such as business owner Frank Vandersloot, were also harassed and audited by the IRS. This had a chilling effect and caused many possible donors to stop writing the checks. By September and October of last year, Obama fund-raising took off while Romney fund-raising flat-lined. Now we know why, it was suppressed by the Obama campaign, and the Obama administration, efforts to intimidate and suppress Romney donors. It worked quite well and cost the Romney campaign millions in dollars and millions more in votes.

Another Republican and conservative donor was also targeted by the federal government. Two years ago, federal agents descended on the famous guitar company, Gibson Guitar Corporation because they were believed to be in violation of the Lacey Act, which bans the trafficking of flora and fauna as well as the harvesting these plants. The acts are also in violation foreign laws. As a result, the federal government seized important materials, products and computer information from the Government. However, what makes this raid so fishy is that Gibson's competitor,  C.F. Martin & Co, was not subject to federal raids even though they use the same materials that Gibson uses in making the guitars. What's the big difference between these two companies? Read below:

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

Several important questions are justifiably raised here. Does Chris Martin IV have any contacts with officials in the federal government or with Democratic party operatives who might agree to use the government as a means to improperly gain an advantage over their competitor? Why was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted for raids by the federal government for allegedly violating laws but not Martin & Co.? Was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted merely because the Chief Executive donates to Republican candidates? Was this raid a form of political intimidation or revenge? Who authorized this raid and why? How high does the approval of this raid go? Was the White House aware of the targeting of this raid?

If Congress is willing to investigate how the IRS targeted conservative Tea Party groups, then Congress should also investigate why the IRS engaged in a systematic and wide-scale harassment of Romney donors via IRS audits. I believe that if Congress investigated this matter, they will eventually find themselves asking whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target Romney supporters in order to win the 2012 election. I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of harassment of Romney supporters and donors. 

Obama Engaged In Illegal Campaign Fundraiser Activities 

While the Obama Administration was busy targeting conservative groups and auditing Romney campaign supporters in order to reduce their financial influence in the 2012 elections, it was also busy in engaging maximizing the amount of campaign donations to his campaign by engaging in illegal campaign donations by accepting online campaign donations from anyone in the world. Obama got campaign donations from Osama Bin Laden from Pakistan even though he was already dead. Twice. Other known terrorists such as Saddam Hussein, Bill Ayers and “Nidal Hasan”were able to make campaign contributions in the 2012 election. These illegal donations were not done by the real terrorists but were conducted as part of a test after multiple media reports of Obama accepting campaign donations from foreigners around the world.

Not only were fictional terrorist donations accepted, but real foreign individuals, like British citizen Chis Walker, were able to make donations to the Obama Campaign during the 2012 elections: 

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.
...
Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

The Obama 2012 campaign could have easily put in electronic safeguards and verifications systems to prevent illegal foreign campaign donations. Bit they didn't. Here's why:

The prospect of illegal foreign donations is an especially thorny problem for the Obama campaign. Here’s why: The Internet site Obama.com isn’t owned by the Obama campaign. It’s owned by China-based American businessman Robert Roche, CEO of Acorn International, a large media company. As Mr. Schweizer and Mr. Boyer note, 68 percent of the some 2,000 visitors each day on Obama.com are foreign in origin.

It is clear that the Obama administration had no interest in verify whether or not the online donations were from U.S. citizens or from foreign non-U.S. citizens. In contrast, Mitt Romney’s campaign website  placed safeguards against such efforts. The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

What's even more fascinating is that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that the 2008 Obama election team were violating federal disclosure laws and issued the largest fines ever ever handed down by the FEC. The Obama administation was fined for the  failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run. 

The FEC must investigate these allegations that Obama intentionally engaged in illegal campaign fundraising during the 2012 campaign. If the Obama 2008 campaign was accepting foreign donations in 2008 and was found guilty by the FEC for failing to disclose campaign donations in that election, there is also strong evidence that Obama engaged in these same illegal activities in the 2012 election. Not only does the FEC need to investigate this matter, but so does Congress. Additionally, Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into these allegations.  

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression

Dean Chambers, who is a controversial figure for contesting the 2008 Presidential election and the 2012 election, believes that Obama engaged in voter fraud and voter suppression that resulted in "at least 2-3 million more votes gained in the Obama column via voters fraud in several key swing states." He believes that "the Obama Regime definitely won the election by suppressing Romney votes and supplementing the votes they won with massive voter fraud in the key swing states."

However, Dean Chambers isn't the only individual who believes that Obama engaged in illegal voter fraud and suppression. Many conservatives as well as Romney supporters who have created websites focusing on voter turnout in relation to that area's history of voter turnout, multiple voting by a single Obama voter, and the inconsistencies in polling and actual voter turnout.  There is plenty evidence of suspicious activity that rises to the level of having a Congressional investigation as well as a independent special prosecutor to look into this. 

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is also tied to the issue of voter fraud and voter suppression. As the Republican National Lawyer's Association points out, "the Tea Party has a strong interest in stopping vote fraud and there can be little doubt that was part of the reason for the IRS targeting. By handcuffing the smaller state based Tea Party groups interested in honest elections in their states, the IRS made studying voting let alone stopping vote fraud more difficult."

Benghazi 

The Obama administration had prior knowledge that there might be a potential terrorist attack on the Benghazi consular compound. Repeated requests for additional security personnel and security improvements to the building  was made prior to the attack but repeatedly denied. There were reports of suspicious individuals surveying and scouting the compound prior to the attacks from the CIA and from the Benghazi consulate. 

When the attacks occurred, we now know that repeated requests for security teams to be flown into assist in the defense of the compound was repeatedly denied. We also know that the CIA, the State Department and other government officials immediately classified the assault on the Benghazi compound as a terrorist attack. Yet, the Obama administation did nothing to help and actually told people to stand down and not help. 

Finally, we now know that there was no spontaneous riots at the compound but that it was a preplanned and coordinated attack by terrorists. We also know that an Internet video was not responsible for what happened in Benghazi. We know that the Obama administration made numerous edits to the official talking points that removed key details and facts that showed that this was a terrorist attacks. We also know that Barack Obama, Hilliary Clinton and other officials in the Obama administration repeatedly lied to the American people about what happened. 

The Sacking Of General Petraus 

There is some questions surrounding the timing of the investigation into General David Petraeus’ affair with his Biographer Paula Broadwell and the withholding of the news of this investigation and the timing of when the General resigned. The reason why this is suspicious in light of the 2012 election is explained below: 

Reports indicate the FBI initiated an investigation over the summer regarding General Petraeus’ extramarital affair and the potential related threats to national security. However, the agency never alerted Congress of the potential compromise of confidential information.

The Obama administration has also insisted it was never notified by the FBI of the pending investigation prior to the election. However, many critics now conclude the White House intentionally delayed the announcement of Petraeus’ resignation to avoid any impact on Obama’s reelection bid.

Obama and The Media 

We also know that the Obama administration was not without help from the media. The media assisted Obama whenever it could including during the 2012 Presidential Debates when moderators stepped out of their role to "correct" the facts about Benghazi. The media also didn't aggressively investigate into the Benghazi attacks despite the glaring evidence that this was a terrorist attack and that Obama as well as his administration wasn't being truthful about what happened that night. It is unfortunate that the media is just now taking an interest int his story when there's a congressional investigation and strong evidence of a cover up and allegations of hiding, suppressing and threatening witnesses. In some cases, witnesses were either demoted at their jobs or fired. Had the media done their job, Obama most definitely would have lost the election because no candidate could not have survived that kind of bad press unless the press was willing to ignore or downplay the attack. 

But most importantly, the Obama administration engaged in illegal and unconstitutional investigations into several reporters who were receiving leaks about Benghazi. Obama had the media in the tank for him but he needed to suppress those members of the press who were actually doing their jobs in order to win. He had to violate the several key provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get federal officials to snoop on these reporters.

Conclusion 

Mitt Romney was right all along. Obama would do anything to win. He went to great lengths to do whatever it took to win the election and maintain his hold on power. Obama "won" the 2012 election mostly, if not entirely, through illegitimate and illegal election activities. Many of these activities are also criminal. 

Each of these events alone are troubling and require Congressional investigation as well as an independent special investigator. However, the real problem is that you have to look at the big picture and how all of these illegal activities tie together. All of them were conducted with one purpose in mind: win the election at all cost even if it means violating local, state, federal law or the Constitution. In looking at the totality of these illegal activities, it is clear that Obama was successful in doing whatever it took to win.  It was all a coordinated effort to help Obama win.

Obama's illegal campaign activities has forever changed this country. It has certainly changed the way we view elections in the future and the way both parties will conduct them in 2016 and beyond. The lengths Obama went through to win the election is similar to the way dictators and tyrants "win" their staged elections.

But the most disturbing aspect of the 2012 election is that Obama was willing to do anything necessary to win and that meant disregarding the Constitution to get that second Presidential term. Obama's acts of investigation and suppression of his enemies is similar to how tyrants deal with their opponents. The Constitution was trampled upon and seriously weakened and we don't know how effective this document will be in protecting the rights of individuals in the future. 

America is no longer America any more.  

Mitt Romney Making History In The Fundraising Battle Against Obama

Mitt Romney had a great day yesterday in raising a campaign record of money raised in a single day. He also continues to do well in raising funds for his campaign:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, since becoming his party’s presumptive nominee, is now taking in cash from donors who had backed his onetime rivals, campaign finance reports show.

The $23.4 million Romney raised last month included $634,495 from 225 contributors who earlier gave the maximum $2,500 to the presidential campaigns of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, or Texas Governor Rick Perry, according to a computer-assisted analysis of Federal Election Commission data. Romney faces President Barack Obama in November. 

In addition, casino executive Sheldon Adelson and his family, who had contributed $21.5 million to a political action committee supporting Gingrich, gave $10 million in June to a pro-Romney super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Texas businessman Robert Brockman, who earlier had given $50,000 to a pro-Perry super-PAC through one of his companies, gave $1 million through three other companies to the super-PAC supporting Romney, a former Massachusetts governor.  

Mitt Romney is making history as he runs for President. He's the first LDS candidate to successfully become the official candidate of a major party. He's also making history of financing his campaign entirely on funds raised by private donors: 

Several donors gave $5,000 to Romney, who became the first Republican since Richard Nixon in 1972 to raise private money for the general election. Following the Watergate break-in scandal that led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Congress offered public financing to candidates who agreed to forgo raising private money, and every major-party nominee except Obama in 2008 took the federal funds. This year both campaigns will be funded entirely with private money.

Romney entered June with $17 million in the bank, one-sixth of the $109.7 million amassed by Obama. That gap was narrowed as the Republican National Committee reported $60.8 million cash on hand, more than double the Democratic National Committee’s $29.7 million.

In May, the first full month since Romney was assured of winning the nomination, he received $7.1 million and the RNC $25.9 million from a joint fundraising committee. Obama brought in $8.7 million and the DNC $13.3 million from a similar fundraising apparatus, which allows donors give larger contributions at one time.

Mitt Romney is also making history as being the first candidate to have the ability to raise more money and outspend the incumbent President: 

A senior Obama campaign strategist, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said earlier in the day that Romney would best his earlier total — and predicted that the Republican's hauls, plus unrestricted super-PAC cash, would mean "we're going to be the first incumbent outspent."The super-PAC phenomenon has been a recurring source of handwringing at Obama HQ in Chicago. Aides say they worry that those deep-pockets will unleash an unprecedented blitz of negative ads—and that comparable entities on the Democratic side lack the cash to counter effectively.

"I think [Romney's] going to have a $100 million month this month between he and the RNC," the strategist said. "I think you are going to see another huge month from him."

"Given Sen. Kerry outraised Bush two to one in the first couple of months after he won the nomination, I think Romney is going to continue to have big months. Combined with that with the super PAC stuff, we're going to be the first incumbent outspent," the strategist said.

Its clear that Romney is doing well when it comes to the battle of campaign financing between these two men. But the real winner is this game is the supporters of Mitt Romney, conservativism and the Republican party who are the ones helping Mitt make history as we open our wallets and donate to him.  We must continue our efforts of making phone calls for him, donating for him and doing other things like blogging for Mitt, writing letters to your local newspaper and putting signs in your yard. All of your efforts, in whatever way you have contributed so far is helping. Keep up the good work everyone!

Mitt Romney Campaign Hauls In Record Campaign Donations In One Day

Mitt Romney had his most successful campaign fundraiser in his 2012 campaign in which the team set a record for cash raised in one day:

Mitt Romney enjoyed what campaign officials described as his single best day of fundraising yet, which hauled in between $6 million and $8 million for the candidate as he made a finance swing through Michigan on Wednesday.

"Michigan has been great," John Rakolta, a national finance co-chair of Romney's presidential campaign, told attendees during a fundraiser Romney headlined at a local Marriott here. "Today, we will exceed every single event that has been held for Gov. Romney from the beginning of the campaign. So we have set a new record tonight in terms of fundraising."

Taking the stage, Romney praised the supporters who had written checks to his 2012 bid. According to the campaign, more than 500 people contributed at least $2,500 a piece to attend tonight's reception just outside Detroit. Individuals who contributed $10,000 got to meet and pose for a photo with the Republican nominee, while $50,000 scored folks an invite to a private dinner with Romney.

"It's hard to write a check to a politician. It's harder to get a friend to do it," Romney said, praising the "herculean work" of his national finance team.

He suggested donors weren't just giving to support his campaign, but rather to get America back on track.

"I realize that this is not about me. You are not giving a check to me. You're not giving a check to the Republican Party. You are concerned about America. This is about our country. And like me, you are of the view that if we stay on the path we are on, that America will be something far less than what it could be," Romney told supporters, as they munched on appetizers. "You're trying to make an investment in America's future that will put us on the road to greatness again. And so I salute you in this mutual quest we have."

Mitt Romney is correct. A donation to his campaign is an investment in our country by supporting a candidate who will help restore our economy, put people back to work and reducing the national debt. Keep those donations coming in for Mitt Romney! 

Sheldon Adelson Gives $10 Million To Mitt Romney's Super PAC

Mitt Romney is doing very well when it comes to recieving political donation. Recently, Mitt's super PAC, received a large donation from a former supporter of Newt Gingrich: 

Billionaire conservative casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who helped keep Newt Gingrich’s failed presidential campaign alive during the Republican primaries, is giving $10 million to the super PAC supporting the presumptive  GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The leader of the super PAC Restore Our Future, Carl Forti, wouldn’t confirm the donation and said his policy was to not comment on donors or potential donors. Mr. Adelson’s spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment.

The $ 10 million figure appears to be the largest single donation towards Mr. Romney’s efforts so far. The independent political action committee, by law, cannot coordinate its work with the formal Romney campaign.

This donation will help alot in Mitt Romney's efforts to remain competitive with Obama's fundraising efforts. Obama is relying on Hollywood for donations to stay ahead of Mitt Romney in the fundraising race: 

President Barack Obama is using the entertainment industry on both coasts to help fill the fundraising hole left by defections of some Wall Street donors.

Obama has been hitting California and New York in the race to stay ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in fundraising for the presidential campaign. He’ll be in New York tonight for the second time this month for an event at actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s house and another co-hosted by singer Mariah Carey at the Plaza Hotel, aiming to raise $4.5 million. 

Obama isn't raising the kind of money now as he did back in 2008 and small and big donors aren't as willing to donate to his campaign anymore. This worries Obama's campaign staff: 

In growing numbers, once-confident Democrats now say President Barack Obama could lose the November election. The hand-wringing reflects real worries among Democrats about Obama's ability to beat Republican rival Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a stronger candidate than many expected. But it's also a political strategy aimed at rallying major donors who may have become complacent.

Interviews with a dozen Democratic strategists and fundraisers across the country show an increased sense of urgency among Obama backers. It follows a difficult two weeks for the president, including a dismal report on the nation's unemployment picture, a Democratic defeat in the Wisconsin governor recall election and an impressive fundraising month for Romney and Republicans.

Given that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are neck and neck both in the polls and fundraising, Obama should be real worried that he might not be in the White House again. But then again, America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.

Wall Street Ditches Thier Support For Obama And Now Support Romney

With President Obama spending his entire presidency vilifying Wall Street, he's now finding it difficult to get their support for the 2012 campaign. In fact, they used to support Obama in 2008 but are now switching to Mitt Romney because he is known as a candidate who supports big and small businesses: 

Dozens of Wall Street executives who supported President Obama in 2008 have donated to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign this year.

According to a review of fundraising data, 67 people who work in the financial sector and live in the New York City metro area gave to Obama in 2008 and to the former Massachusetts governor in 2011.

The reversals come in the wake of Obama's tough rhetoric on Wall Street — most notably last year, when the president was pushing Congress to pass what has become known as the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The 67 individuals who live in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut donated at least once to Obama's 2008 campaign. They have since directed contributions amounting to more than $147,000 toward Romney's presidential campaign.

The crossover donors are employed by a large number of banks, private equity firms and hedge-fund companies, including Credit Suisse, The Blackstone Group, Stanwich Group and Goldman Sachs.

One former wall street Obama supporter explained why many businessmen are abandoning the President and supporting Romney: 

One Wall Street executive, who requested anonymity, said he and some of his colleagues feel betrayed by Obama.

"Everybody I speak to is on the same boat — disappointment," said the source, who contributed to Obama three years ago and is now backing Romney.

The executive said he and others on Wall Street have taken exception to Obama's rhetoric about the wealthy, especially because the president has asked rich donors to fork over $35,800 to his reelection efforts.

"It's not healthy for rich people to feel maligned," the executive said.

The Obama Administration has shown that it does not respect businesses regardless of their size. He will take their campaign donations and then turn around and berate them for their wealth in front of the American people. He supports unions which are an impediment to business wishing to grow and remain competitive in this economy. Obama has made repeated promises to fix the economy but has yet to follow through with it. Finally, Obama's record on the economy as President of the United States demonstrates that he has never taken the economy or the deficit seriously.. His policies have caused the economy to shrink rather than expand and we lost our AAA credit rating due to his incompetence on the economy.

The reason why business owners and workers are supporting Mitt Romney because he is a candidate who has been focusing strictly on the economy.  Many people were impressed with Mitt's passionate defense of business at the 2011 Ames Straw poll a few weeks ago. In fact, Mitt Romney will continue to defend business through out his entire campaign.

That's why America need Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012. He's a candidate who appeals to people across the political spectrum because everyone is affected by the poor economy. Everyone benefits from a healthy and vibrant economy.  People want a candidate who respects businesses, employers and employees. They need a candidate who knows how to create jobs by providing a regulatory environment that is friendly to businesses. There's no better pro-business candidate in this election than Mitt Romney.

Mystery Mitt Romney "Restore Our Future" Donor Revealed

After much controversy and speculation, we now know who the biggest donor to the Restore Our Future PAC is:

The anonymous donor behind the headline-making $1 million contribution to a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC is a former Bain Capital official with long ties to the candidate, who's asking the outside group to amend its filings, POLITICO has learned.

The check-writer is Ed Conard, who was a top official at Bain, the private-equity firm Romney helped create, and who has been a strong supporter of his over the years.

The donation, made to the super PAC "Restore Our Future" - which was founded by former Romney advisers and is able to take in unlimited contributions, but must report them to the FEC - showed up in the group's first round of filings. It was listed as coming from a W Spann LLC.

In a statement to POLITICO, Conard said, "I am the individual who formed and funded W Spann LLC. I authorized W Spann LLC’s contribution to Restore Our Future PAC.

"I did so after consulting prominent legal counsel regarding the transaction, and based on my understanding that the contribution would comply with applicable laws," he said. "To address questions raised by the media concerning the contribution, I will request that Restore Our Future PAC amend its public reports to disclose me as the donor associated with this contribution."

After finding out who the mystery donor is, there really is no controversy surrounding the donation. He's a well known Mitt Romney supporter who has made donations to him and other conservative organizations in the past.

Good Day For Mitt Romney: Raises $20 Million In 2nd Quarter, His SuperPAC raises $12 Million

As I reported earlier, Mitt Romney is far ahead of his Republican rivals in raising campaign fund for 2012.. The results are finally in for the 2nd quarter with Mitt Romney reporting that his campaign has raised $20 million: 

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner and former Massachusetts governor, claims to have raised nearly $20 million for his campaign in the second quarter.

Romney's $20 million haul includes an impressive $10 million raised in a single day at a Las Vegas fundraiser in May.

Another good piece of news is that a super PAC established by prominent Mitt Romney backers called Restore Our Future, PAC is reporting that they raised $12 Million: 

Restore Our Future, the outside spending group founded by supporters of Romney's presidential campaign, said it had raised $12 million by the end of June, and has $12 million in cash on hand. While the group has existed formally since last fall, it launched its efforts in essence just late last month.

"There is tremendous support across the country for Mitt Romney," said the group's treasurer, Charlie Spies, who served as Romney's general counsel in 2008. "President Obama has taken our nation down the wrong road with out-of-control government spending that has produced no real results. Voters are fed up. Americans are coming out in support of Gov. Romney because they are confident he has the experience to turn our economy around."

The purpose of the Restore Our Future PAC is to combat Obama's own super PAC: 

The group aims to go head-to-head with Priorities USA Action, a similar super PAC led by former White House aides in support of President Obama. But Restore Our Future PAC could be used to go after other Republicans if necessary in the party’s primary season, those familiar with the operation said. 

Yet, this isn't the only super PAC for Obama. He has not one, but two super PACs, for the 2012 election. The fact that he is willing to use these PACs is hypocritical in light of his false criticism of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United v. FEC. 

Obama's two super PACs, Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action will be formidable groups who will rely on undisclosed donors as well as corporations and unions as sources of funding to help reelect Obama. This isn't the first time that Obama has used PACs since he used them during the 2008 Presidential elections as well.

Its clear that Mitt Romney fully intends to wage a campaign fundraising war against Obama's hypocritical fundrasing machine since he plans to raise at least $60 million for the 2012 election but might end up spending at least a billion to get himself reelected. 

While Mitt Romney has an ambitious goal to defeat Barak Obama both in campaign funds and at the ballot box, other candidates have less ambitious goals of surviving the Republican primaries or have set their sights even lower by seeing if they can stay surviving at all:

For all the candidates not named Romney, the question is: “Do they raise enough to remain viable in the eyes of the press and in terms of mounting an on-the-ground campaign in caucus states and a media campaign in primary states?” says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University in Washington.

Already, he says, some could have trouble meeting that threshold. At the top of that list is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who lost most of his campaign staff, including his fundraisers, earlier this month over his unconventional approach (e.g., not a lot of travel to early states). The campaign-finance reports, which require disclosures on expenses, could show Mr. Gingrich’s campaign in the red.

Also in potentially questionable territory, financially, are former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Mr. Pawlenty entered the race with high expectations as a two-term governor who was on John McCain’s shortlist for a running mate during the 2008 campaign. But he has yet to catch on in polls, and without buzz, it can be difficult to attract donors. 

Other candidates are also struggling to stay alive for th e2012 election which really hasn't even begun yet. Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul haven't released their second quarter numbers yet but they both will mostly likely have raised approximately $5 million. Herman Cain has raised a paltry $2.46 million and seems to be following the same trajectory as Newt Gingrich by losing staff members: 

Herman Cain’s Iowa Director, Tina Goff, told TheIowaRepublican.com that she has submitted her resignation and is no longer working for the campaign.  In addition to Goff’s resignation, TheIowaRepublican.com can confirm that Kevin Hall has also left the campaign.  Hall served as Cain’s Straw Poll coordinator.

Goff and Hall both worked on Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign in 2008 and Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign in 2010.  Goff stated that she resigned because the Cain campaign refused to make a serious effort in Iowa, the home of the First-in-the-Nation caucuses.

With just 43 days to the Iowa Straw Poll, Cain’s campaign here in Iowa and nationally seems to be unraveling.  Cain lost his New Hampshire director, Matt Murphy, who was his only staffer in that state, earlier this week.  Jim Zeiler, a Cain regional director who had been to Iowa and was helping with the campaign’s Straw Poll plans, has also left the campaign.

When you look at all the money raised for the second quarter of 2011, it is actually smaller than the total amount in the second quarter of 2007 prior to the 2008 election: 

The total amount raised by all the candidates looks to be much smaller than in 2007, when the top three candidates alone (Romney, Sen. John McCain, and former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani) raised a combined $53 million in the second quarter. In conversations with the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Republican operatives said the weak numbers were due to a weak economy. Also, the race has gotten off to a slow start, and with so much uncertainty about who might enter the race, potential donors may be reluctant to commit to a candidate.

While Mitt Romney had a great day as far as campaign finance goal and has set the yardstick to measure the performance of the other Republican candidates, it is important to remember that the total amount that each of them has raised for the 2nd quarter will not match the amount that Obama will have raised: 

Obama doesn’t have a primary challenge, so he’s cashing up for the general election. His campaign has put out an expectation that between the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee, they will take in a combined $60 million. Four years ago, in the second quarter of 2007, the Obama campaign raised $31 million.

As the election continues to heat up, the question for the primaries be which candidate has the financial and political ability to defeat Barak Obama in 2012? The answer to that question is Mitt Romney.

If you would like to help Mitt Romney defeat Barak Obama, I have set up a donation page in which you can contribute to his campaign.