The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve once again into the controversial issue of limits on money in politics.

This time, it's the limits placed by federal law on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political organizations.

The court today agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it's unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PACs and political committees. He does not challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it's unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes.

The Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge.

A 2010 Supreme Court decision was supposed to herald a new era of special interests' influence in elections, giving rise to shadowy outside spending groups -- "super PACs" -- that could take advantage of unlimited corporate campaign spending.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats openly fretted that the court's 2010 "Citizens United" ruling, which struck down limits on corporate political spending, would allow big business to marshal their resources to bend the law to suit their own purposes.

But with just less than two weeks until the election, super PACs have hardly been the overt bogeyman many political observers had feared. They're plenty influential --  but they’ve become part of the DNA of American politics by operating like para-campaigns for Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Super PACs' influence over campaigns hasn’t been quite as Obama and other Democrats first warned.

“Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign,” Obama said in 2010 comments pushing for Congress to adopt the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required more disclosure for donations to these organizations.

Recommended: Obama and Romney begin campaign blitz

Rather, super PACs -- and the seasoned political professionals who run such groups -- have stepped forward to assume and bolster some of the traditional functions that might otherwise fall to candidates themselves. Super PACs have hardly been able to dictate the terms of the election, but their absence might have otherwise meant dire straits for candidates who benefited from their spending, primarily on television ads.

“The outside group can serve the purpose of providing cover to the challenger while the incumbent attempts to define the challenger with dramatically lopsided resources,” said Jonathan Collegio, the communications director for American Crossroads, one of the largest and most influential Republican super PACs.

NBC News

American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic Super PAC devoted solely to opposition research. Opposition researchers find the dirt on presidential candidates that turns into the mud that is slung throughout the campaign season.

Rock Center

In the presidential campaign and a slew of House and Senate races across the country, super PACs have served varying purposes. They have helped prop up candidates whose own bank accounts are lacking, or have done the dirty work against an opponent that a candidate’s campaign might not be able to execute.

“Between Crossroads and the Chamber and all of those groups, they’ve done a lot in a lot of our states,” said one Democrat familiar with the party’s Senate campaign efforts. “They’ve probably kept their Republican candidates afloat in a couple of instances.”

Super PACs and the battle for the White House

In a similar manner, Romney was the beneficiary of super PAC support at crucial points in his campaign for president. During the Republican primary, a super PAC founded by former aides -- Restore Our Future -- was able to overwhelm Romney’s opposition with millions’ worth of television ads pillorying Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

And after Romney emerged from that primary, bloodied from the process and with relatively depleted bank accounts, Restore Our Future and Crossroads were able to offer him support on the airwaves -- stepping forth as a kind of surrogate for the GOP nominee in the absence of a more robust campaign effort.

Recommended: Detailing Romney's foreign-policy shifts; the latest in a long chapter of change

In essence, no action or advertisement made by Romney or Obama has gone unanswered. That means no super PAC has been able to dominate the general election, though the countervailing advertising has contributed to a kind of Cold War in politics; each side keeps accelerating its spending, partly for fear of falling behind the other side.

That sentiment motivated Obama’s own flip-flop toward super PACs earlier this year, when his campaign dropped its objections toward the groups and embraced Priorities USA, a supportive super PAC founded by former Obama aides.

“With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote in his Feb. 6 missive to Democrats explaining the reversal.

To that end, the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA has spent $52.7 million on the general election, according to NBC News ad-tracking sources, $35.7 million of which has been spent following the Democratic National Convention. Restore Our Future, by contrast, has spent $73 million on the general election, $34.8 of which came after the Republican convention, when Romney got access to the pool of general election funds he had built, but had been unable to access.

A series of other super PACs have stepped forward to spend millions more on both candidates’ behalf.

Super PACs and downballot races

It might be that super PACs’ effect are more pronounced in races downballot, where finances and organization can be more uneven between House and Senate candidates.

House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC dedicated to electing members of the House, was able to coordinate with other progressive groups and pool resources and research in a targeted way.

“One of the ways we’ve been effective is helping to coordinate efforts from a whole host of progressive groups that have traditionally been involved in electoral politics,” said Andy Stone, the group’s communications director. “House Majority PAC has worked to efficiently and effectively use the resources that we have to make a difference in House races, and make sure what happened in 2010 doesn’t happen again -- where House Democrats were just overwhelmed by the last minute by outside money.”

But there are also limits to what super PACs can accomplish.

Paul Lindsay, the communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the NRCC appreciates its outside supporters but has tried to lead the way with its own spending.

“We’ve always worked under the premise that we can only control what is in our organization and capacity,” he said.

“Candidates matter,” said the Senate Democratic operative, echoing that sentiment. “Super PACs can only do so much.”

Related: Ohio tops all states in ad spending

That principle extends to the presidential election, as well. Collegio of American Crossroads argued that it’s up to candidates -- not their supportive super PACs -- to close the deal with voters.

“Ultimately, outside groups that can’t coordinate are far more effective at making the case against candidates than at making the case for candidates,” he said. “A candidate must push himself or herself over the finish line with their own message and identity.”

LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- With a touch of humor and at one point admonition, President Obama urged supporters at a Los Angeles fundraiser here not to lose enthusiasm for his campaign just because he had one lousy debate performance.

The president kicked off his remarks with an allusion to last Wednesday night that the whole crowd seemed to pick up on. Praising his opening acts at the Nokia Theater here, which included Stevie Wonder, Jon Bon Jovi and Katy Perry, Obama said, “These guys perform flawlessly night after night.”

“I can’t always say the same,” he continued, waiting a beat for comic timing.

And later he reminded his audience that he had some imperfect moments during the last campaign as well.

“Everybody always remembers the victory but they don’t always remember the bumps in the road; things always look good in retrospect.

“But in the middle of it, we were – we made all kinds of mistakes. We goofed up, I goofed up, but the American people carried us forward,” urging his supporters not to forget that they stuck by him even when he hiccupped in 2008 – something he hopes they do over the next 30 days.

BOSTON -- Mitt Romney's campaign and its fundraising allies announced Sunday they had brought in $111.6 million dollars last month, making August the most lucrative fundraising month yet for the GOP nominee and the third straight month Team Romney has raised more than $100 million dollars.

In a press release, the campaign said it now has $168.5 million in cash-on-hand between the Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee and the state parties which combine to make up the so-called "Romney Victory" fund. The Obama re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee raised more than $114 million in August, campaign manager Jim Messina said early Monday morning, Reuters reported. 

 The Romney campaign said 94% of the donations they received in August came from donors who gave less than $250 dollars apiece, for a total of $34.6 million dollars, and that donations came from all 50 states the District of Columbia.

On August 10th, Romney announced the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the campaign touted the subsequent spike in online giving for days after the selection as a sign of increased grassroots support for the Republican effort.

A joint statement from Romney national finance chairman Spencer Zwick and RNC chairman Reince Priebus used the fundraising totals to continue to push the campaign's latest motivating question, meant to undermine support for President Obama: Are voters better off today than they were four years ago?

“Americans are not better off than they were four years ago and they are looking for a change of leadership. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are offering bold solutions to our country’s problems – that is why we are seeing such tremendous support from donors across the country," Zwick and Priebus said.

Just hours before the Republican National Convention played a campaign video Wednesday night showing Mitt Romney at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, his single-biggest financial backer -- billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- made a rare public appearance, telling reporters at a Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) event that the GOP presidential candidate is “very pro-Israel” and is “going to defend what he thinks is best for the relationship” between Israel and the United States.

But Adelson, who with his wife has given $10 million to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future super PAC, never had the chance to expand on his views about the Middle East or respond to questions about his mega donations to the GOP cause. As soon as the frail but feisty 79-year-old chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. sat down -- after making a grand entrance clutching a cane and assisted by his Israeli-born wife -- RJC coalition organizers chased away members of the media, repeatedly shouting: “The event is over! We’re going to close this down!”

(Later that evening, a producer with the radio show Democracy Now sought to question Adelson —  being accompanied by Karl Rove — while he was being taken by wheel chair to a fourth floor corporate skybox at the convention. In an incident caught on videotape here, the producer, Mike Burke, reported that a woman identified as Adelson’s daughter grabbed his camera, took it into the skybox and threw it on the ground. Burke said the daughter later apologized.) 

Lior Mizrahi / Getty Images

U.S. gaming tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam arrive to hear Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney delivers foreign policy remarks on July 29, 2012 in Jerusalem, Israel.

The brief appearance by Adelson came at a spirited event where top members of Congress rubbed elbows with wealthy GOP donors and “Obama ... Oy Vey!” buttons were freely distributed to attendees. At the same time, new details emerged about Adelson’s role in steering supersize checks to groups working to defeat the president and elect Republican members of Congress.

Shortly before Adelson arrived, celebrity rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author of “Kosher Sex” and a one-time spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson who is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress from New Jersey, boasted that Adelson and his wife had recently given $500,000 to “my super PAC” and that they were “heroes of our community.”

Boteach later told reporters that he had then dined with Adelson this week during the RNC convention. “Well, I mean, look they’re friends,” he said of Adelson and his wife. “They don’t need me to tell them where to give their money. They’re very savvy political donors.”

As for the super PAC, called “Patriot Prosperity PAC,” Boteach at first said that, while “we obviously don’t have any contact with them,” it was “set up by the professionals who run my campaign.” 

Although the half-million dollar donation by Adelson and his wife to the “Patriot Prosperity PAC” had already been reported, Boteach’s  reference to “my super PAC” and his reference to it being “set up” by his campaign “professionals”  seemed to raise fresh questions about whether the donations complied with federal election laws. Those laws bar campaign committees from coordinating their activities with supposedly independent super PACs -- which are allowed to take unlimited donations.

But when pressed by reporters about his comments about the origins of the group, the rabbi corrected himself.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no,” he said when asked if his campaign staff had set up the super PAC donations. “Let’s not pull me into something that I am not -- I said the people who run my campaign are the ones who tell me what we’re allowed to do and what we’re not allowed to do. And we are allowed to tell the people who support us that if they want to support us, there was a super PAC. And that’s what we did. That’s exactly what I meant.”

Adelson’s contributions in the 2012 election --- now, combined with those of his wife, total more than $40 million -- have stirred controversy, in part because of his hardline views on Israel (he is a close friend of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu) but also because of ongoing federal investigations into his gambling empire over allegations that it has paid bribes to Chinese officials.

Also this week, Bloomberg News reported that Adelson’s Sands Corp. -- which generates more than half of its multibillion-dollar revenues from four casinos in Macau -- could see its profits soar if Romney were elected and fulfills his pledge to demand that China loosen currency restrictions, allowing the value of the yuan to rise against the dollar.

Adelson’s appearance was the highlight of the RJC event -- partly sponsored by Comcast (owner of NBC News) -- which was attended by other big GOP donors such as hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Also present: GOP Sens. John Thune of South Dakota and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Allen West of Florida, Ed Royce of California and Renee Ellmers of North Carolina.

The event -- briefly interrupted by two protesters who loudly denounced Israeli policies towards the Palestinians and were quickly evicted -- was marked by multiple denunciations of Obama’s policies to Israel.

“I don’t know how there are any Democratic Jews,” said GOP Rep. Billy Long of Missouri. “The way the president has treated [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu and the land of Israel, I don’t know how any Democratic Jew can still be a Democrat.”

NBC’s Jamie Novogrod also contributed to this story.

You may have never heard his name, but David Bossie has already done plenty to influence the 2012 election and he’s not finished yet.

Now, the veteran conservative activist, whose political “oppo” movie-making triggered the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that unleashed unlimited spending on campaign ads, is planning to make another big splash at this week’s GOP convention.  This week, Bossie will be unveiling a  new $5 million attack film depicting Barack Obama as an out of touch elitist whose presidency has been a complete failure.

The movie , “The Hope and The Change,” is the latest and most ambitious production yet of Citizens United—the conservative advocacy group that Bossie heads. It’s an ideological companion to “2016: Obama’s America,” another anti-Obama movie by conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza that made a surprisingly strong showing in the box office last weekend.

In Bossie’s movie, an advance copy of which he  shared with NBC News, a parade of 40 voters—all of whom say they voted for Obama in 2008 and many with hard luck stories – vent about bailouts, subsidies for the wealthy, health care and their utter disillusionment with the president. 

“There are some really unbelievably powerful moments in this film where you get choked up over,” says Bossie, as he discussed his high hopes for the movie in an interview Sunday.  “ Because these people, they’re your average Americans.  These are average Americans.”

The voters seen in the film weren’t selected by accident. They were culled from thousands of participants in focus groups in key battleground states conducted for Citizens United by  Patrick Cadell, the one- time Jimmy Carter pollster (and now a regular commentator on Fox News.) Cadell  teamed up with Bossie and director Steve Bannon—former executive chairman of Breitbart.com, the website of the late conservative activist Andrew Breitbart--  to make “The Hope and The Change.” 

“It’s really a story of these 40 Democrats and Independents and their lives over the last four years,” says Bossie. “They bought into the hope and change.  They bought into the rhetoric of, ‘I’m a uniter, not a divider.’ ... If conservatives can learn  to talk these people – this group of people – they’re going to be able to win a lot of elections.

Related: First Thoughts: Two storms in two weeks

Not all of the commentary made by the voters in the film would withstand the scrutiny of fact checkers. Several complain about big bail-outs to big  banks (“Nobody came to help me and bail me out,” one says) with no mention that it was actually President Bush, not Obama, who approved the TARP bail-out to banks in late 2008.

But even more arresting moments than the stories of these voters may be  shots in “The Hope and The Change” of adoring, near hysterical crowds watching Obama speeches in 2008 -- images that one critic has already compared to scenes from the movies of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.  (Bossie, for his part, rejects the comparison, saying he’s never even seen any of Riefenstahl’s  movies.)

Slideshow: Republican National Convention

As the movie progresses, these are followed by repeated clips of a seemingly carefree  president shooting hoops, playing golf, yucking it up with Hollywood celebrities and taking vacations in Hawaii and Martha’s Vinyard—all while Bossie’s “average Americans” are suffering.

Bossie, who earned his spurs as a congressional investigator on the Whitewater investigation and other Clinton era probes, has invited hundreds to the  world premier of “The Hope and The Change,” Tuesday  afternoon at Liberty Plaza—a sprawling white tent a few blocks from the Tampa Convention Center where Citizens United, the super PAC American Action Network, and a host of other companies and lobbying organizations have set up entertainment centers and rest areas for the delegates and GOP lawmakers.

But Bossie says the big impact from his film will become later this week when he announces what he is touting as a “major TV deal” to air his movie on its entirety on cable. (Portions were aired last Friday night on a special Sean Hannity show.) Following that, Bossie says, the movie will be spliced up and turned into Citizens United attack ads that will run right up to election day. 

In producing “The Hope and The Change,”  Bossie says he takes his inspiration from Michael Moore, the famed leftwing filmmaker whose “Fahrenheit 911” skewered then-President George W. Bush before the 2004 election.

Recommended: Republicans ready for convention, but are they ready to attract Latino voters?

Indeed, Bossie says it was Moore who prompted him and Citizens United to do an earlier attack movie on Hillary Clinton that led to the now famous Supreme Court decision rejecting restrictions on big money attack ads in political campaigns.

“Michael Moore made a film attacking George Bush, and he didn’t let the facts get in the way of a good storyline,” says Bossie. “ What we did was want to be able to do the same thing. That’s what the Citizens United case emanated from. .. And that’s why in 2008 I went to the United States Supreme Court to fight for my right, and it took me many years.  And in 2010 we finally won our victory.” 

Now, Bossie says, the legal gloves are off: He can make whatever film he wants, spend as much as he can raise to influence the election (and not tell anybody where the money comes from) and not worry about the Federal Election Commission coming after him.

“This is the first election cycle that we are now legally able to make a political documentary and show it and its ads on television,” he says. “And we’re really excited about that.”

Mitt Romney's success in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the costliest presidential race ever can be traced in part to a secretive data-mining project that sifts through Americans' personal information — including their purchasing history and church attendance — to identify new and likely, wealthy donors, The Associated Press has learned.

For the data-mining project, the Republican candidate has quietly employed since at least June a little-known but successful analytics firm that previously performed marketing work for a colleague tied to Bain & Co., the management-consulting firm that Romney once led.

The head of Buxton Co. of Fort Worth, Texas, chief executive Tom Buxton, confirmed to the AP his company's efforts to help Romney identify rich and previously untapped Republican donors across the country.

The Romney campaign declined to discuss on the record its work with Buxton or the project's overall success.

There are no records of payments to Buxton from Romney's campaign, the Republican National Committee or a joint fundraising committee. Under federal law, companies cannot use corporate money or resources, such as proprietary data analysis, for in-kind contributions to campaigns.

Evan Vucci / AP

Mitt Romney's success in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the costliest presidential race ever can be traced in part to a data-mining project that sifts through Americans' personal information to identify new and likely, wealthy donors, The Associated Press has learned.

Buxton said he's working for the Romney campaign because he wants "to be on the winning team."

He once worked with a former Romney business partner to provide insights, for example, about where Petco should open a new pet-supply store to maximize profits. In addition to Buxton, the data-mining project was described to the AP by a Romney fundraiser who spoke on condition of anonymity because the fundraiser did not want to face repercussions for describing internal campaign processes.

Businesses use those kinds of analytics firms to answer key questions for clients, such as where to build a retail store or where to mail pamphlets touting a new product. The analysis doesn't directly bring in campaign contributions, but it generates the equivalent of sales leads for Romney's campaign.

The project relies upon a sophisticated analysis by powerful computers of thousands of commercially available, expensive databases that are lawfully bought and sold behind the scenes by corporations, including details about credit accounts, families and children, voter registrations, charitable contributions, property tax records and survey responses. It combines marketing data with what is known in this specialized industry as psychographic information about Americans.

The effort by Romney appears to be the first example of a political campaign using such extensive data analysis.

President Barack Obama's re-election campaign has long been known as data-savvy, but Romney's project appears to take a page from the Fortune 500 business world and dig deeper into available consumer data.

An early test analyzed details of more than 2 million households near San Francisco and elsewhere on the West Coast and identified thousands of people who would be comfortably able and inclined to give Romney at least $2,500 or more.

An AP analysis this week determined that Romney's campaign has made impressive inroads into even traditionally Democratic neighborhoods, collecting more than $350,000 this summer around San Francisco in contributions that averaged $400 each. High-dollar donors have been essential to Romney's election effort, unlike Obama, who relies on more contributors giving smaller amounts.

Romney and the GOP have out-fundraised Obama's re-election effort for the past three months.

The fate of the presidency may depend on who raises more money in the campaign, whose cost for the first time is approaching $2 billion. That figure includes hundreds of millions of dollars spent by "super" political committees that accept unlimited and in some cases effectively anonymous contributions from millionaires, companies, labor groups and others to pay for television campaign advertisements across the nation.

Buxton confirmed that the data-mining project began with the help of Dick Boyce, Romney's former Bain & Co. colleague, after Romney joined fundraising forces with the Republican National Committee. Buxton expressed such confidence in his business and analysis methods that, in nearly two decades of running his firm, he told AP he has always been able to answer essential questions for customers.

"I can look at data of any kind and say, 'I want to know who that $100 donor could be,'" Buxton said. "We look at data of any kind."

Obama's campaign employs its own form of data analysis to lure potential supporters, via Facebook and Twitter, to fine-tune messages for supporters and potential donors. The Obama campaign declined to comment on its internal fundraising practices, although Buxton said it doesn't work with Obama's campaign.

Romney's campaign has also been secretive about how it raises its money, and most fundraising events have been closed to the press. Unlike Obama, Romney's campaign has declined to publicly identify the names of major fundraisers, known as bundlers, who have helped amass much of its money. Details of this project have not been made public until now, as payments to Buxton aren't reflected in federal campaign expense reports.

Buxton is not listed as a vendor in any of the campaign's reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission, although some campaigns do not report expenses until the vendor sends them a bill.

When AP initially asked Buxton about its work for Romney, it declined to acknowledge that it helped raise money for the RNC, even as its own website displayed a prominent log-in page for "2012 presidential donor prospecting." That web address contained the letters "RNC" — a common abbreviation for the Republican National Committee. After the AP's continued questioning, the company replaced the "RNC" letters in the web address with a generic "campaign" the next day.

This is not Buxton's first foray into politics: In 2006, the company produced 1,000 names for a Connecticut campaign to meet a write-in ballot requirement, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram then reported, and 900 of them signed up.

Few in Washington campaign circles recognized the work of Buxton, although it lists thousands of other clients in the public and private sector, including hospitals and local governments.

WASHINGTON - Americans moved a step closer to being able to make campaign contributions by text message on Wednesday when the Federal Election Commission approved protections sought by wireless carriers over fraud and profitability. 

The FEC ruled that wireless carriers would have no responsibility for possible fraudulent campaign donations and could decide whether to refuse text-donation services to campaigns if they are not deemed commercially viable. 

Related: Pa. judge refuses to block voter ID law

"Barring some unforeseen issue I think this increases the likelihood that text donations in some form will be used this year," said Jan Baran, a prominent campaign finance lawyer representing carriers. "The carriers are evaluating to see if there are any other concerns that may not have been addressed." 

The FEC's historic approval of text-to-donate for political campaigns on June 11 allowed anonymous donations by text capped at $10 per text, $50 per month and $200 per cycle to comply with disclosure requirements. 

The campaigns of Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney both supported approval of such donations, which were touted as a step toward empowering smaller donors in the 2012 campaign marked by a flood of multimillion-dollar donations. 

But the mobile companies that would implement the program, including the four U.S. giants Sprint Nextel Corp, Verizon Wireless, AT&T Inc. and T-Mobile USA, asked the FEC for another vote for more specific guidance. 

CARRIERS' CONCERNS 

The carriers' two main concerns were about liability over fraudulent or excessive donations and discretion over which campaigns they do business with, industry officials have said. 

The FEC on Wednesday put the onus on the political campaigns, saying they were "solely responsible" for ensuring donations comply with federal laws that prohibit donations from corporations, foreign nationals and people under 18 years old. 

The FEC also ruled that carriers, like other vendors in the past, should be allowed to develop commercial eligibility criteria that would allow them to refuse text message donation services to some campaigns. 

For instance, the service could be limited to presidential campaigns or reserved for candidates who are on the ballot or have a history of successful fundraising, according to examples the carriers' trade group CTIA has presented to the FEC. 

"Wireless service providers propose 'to establish objective business criteria that are specific to political contribution text messaging campaigns.' They may decide, for commercial reasons, to accept only proposals from some political committees and not others," the FEC said in the new ruling. 

"Alternatively, the wireless service providers may decide that it would not be in their 'commercial' interest to participate in the political fundraising process and 'refuse participation by all political committees.'" 

The CTIA's comments to the FEC submitted ahead of the vote also indicate that carriers seek the ability to "refuse to sell services to candidates who, based on the wireless service providers' business judgments, espouse views that may harm the wireless service providers' brands." 

That position has raised red flags among some observers who worry it gives phone companies dangerous power to pick and chose participants. Wireless carriers have argued they need that power to protect themselves from damages to their business. 

"The brand is so important for these companies, and it doesn't take much to have that sullied," said Jeffrey Silva, a telecommunications policy analyst at Medley Global Advisors. 

REACHING MANY 

About 88 percent of U.S. adults have at least one cell phone line and about three-quarters of those use text messaging, according to the Pew Research Center. 

The top four carriers account for about 90 percent of the more than 330 million wireless subscriptions in the nation. 

Sprint spokeswoman Crystal Davis said the firm was reviewing the FEC's rule and "intends to implement this new service in a way that adheres to FEC regulations for political contributions (and) protects the privacy of our customers." 

A T-Mobile representative declined comment, while Verizon and AT&T representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

The 2012 campaign has been marked by an unprecedented flow of multimillion-dollar donations to outside spending groups that have no fundraising limits. 

The text donation proposal approved in June had been brought to the FEC by political consulting firms Red Blue T LLC and ArmourMedia Inc and corporate aggregator m-Qube Inc, which serves as a middleman between campaigns and mobile companies.

David Koch is a Romney delegate, National Journal reports: “The New York Republican Party listed Koch as one of the state's 34 at-large delegates on a roster provided by the party. Koch, whose position atop Koch Industries gives him a net worth that Forbes estimates at $25 billion, has fueled tens of millions of dollars into philanthropies in New York City. But he's best known in the political world as the driving force behind Americans for Prosperity, the 501(c)(4) organization that claims nearly 2 million members who advocate for conservative causes. The group has already spent more than $17 million on television campaign advertisements this year alone. Earlier this week, AFP announced it would spend an additional $25 million on a monthlong advertising buy in 11 battleground states.”

Political Wire: “The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, "familiar as the producer of a ubiquitous plant fertilizer, is now a political player, donating $200,000 in June to the Restore Our Future super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney," the Washington Post reports.”

What does Obama failing Ohio have to do with Oklahoma in a Romney ad?

Romney’s Israel ad is running in West Palm Beach, FL, with $50,000 behind it from Aug. 9-14, Politico reports.

Really, are Republicans ready to embrace Trump? “Donald Trump has declined an offer to deliver a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention, sources with knowledge of convention plans tell Newsmax. But Newsmax has learned that the billionaire businessman has been asked to give a big ‘surprise’ at the convention in Tampa, Fla., which begins on Aug. 27.”

For what it’s worth, neither the RNC nor the Republican National Convention would confirm nor deny the story. Instead, convention spokesman Kyle Downey would only say: “We announced several headliners earlier this week and will continue to announce more headliners and participants, including the keynote, in the days and weeks ahead.”

That was even when asked if they were OK with having the perception out there that Trump was invited to speak in prime time and would have a prominent role at the convention. So they’re not denying it (letting it be out there) and they’re not copping to it (wanting some distance).

The New York Times: "Look closely and it is there, sandwiched between Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Partners II and D3 Family Bulldog Fund: the mortgage on Timothy and Betty Stamps’s modest home on Gentle Bend Drive here. Nearly lost among the blizzard of hedge funds, thoroughbred horses and other gold-plated investments in Mitt Romney's personal financial disclosures, the interest from the $50,500 mortgage is loose change to Mr. Romney, whose net worth has been estimated at close to a quarter-billion dollars. Yet for the Stampses, who have been writing $600 monthly checks to ‘Willard M. Romney’ for 15 years, the money they borrowed from him to buy their home in 1997 was life-changing." 

Are we now reaching the saturation point in TV ads? It’s possible that $45-50 million could be spent on the presidential race this week alone -- in August (!!!)… Romney campaign looking to turn page on a rough last seven weeks… Here’s one way it’s trying to achieve that: by announcing that Team Romney (campaign, RNC, victory fund) raised more than $100 million in July… Yesterday’s tragic shooting in Wisconsin… The Paul Ryan VP boomlet… GOP convention unveils a partial list of its speakers… Washington Post lands a punch on Plouffe… And the New Republic scrutinizes Stu Stevens.

*** Reaching the saturation point: Last week, the campaigns, political parties, and outside interest groups spent almost $40 million in TV ads in the presidential contest, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta. And this week, with the Americans for Prosperity $25 million buy for the next month (which breaks out to some $5 million per week), that number could very well jump up to $45 million or $50 million -- in August. And in just 8-12 battleground states. We often struggle to find the words to describe UNBELIEVABLE amounts of money being spent on this presidential race. But close to $50 million in a week is absolutely stunning. It’s also unchartered territory. Are there diminishing returns on this advertising? Do ads become less effective? How do you break through the clutter? We just don’t know. But here’s one thing we do know: At some point, no matter how much more water you put on a towel, it becomes harder to make it wetter. That’s why they call it saturation.

Christopher Devargas / Reuters

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney points to someone in the audience as he is greeted with cheers and applause at a campaign event held at Sierra Truck Body & Equipment, in North Las Vegas, Nevada, August 3, 2012.

*** Trying to turn the page: Make no mistake: For much of the past seven weeks, Mitt Romney and his campaign have found themselves on the defensive -- on the Obama administration’s immigration announcement, the outsourcing charges, Bain Capital, the tax returns, and the overseas trip. Even on Friday, Team Romney was unable to completely change the subject with the better-than-expected jobs report (163,000 jobs created in July, though the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3%). But as we’ve pointed out before, the Romney campaign has two key moments this month that will allow it to turn the page: the VP pick and the GOP convention. Dan Balz put it well in yesterday’s Washington Post: “The best that can be said about how Mitt Romney fared in July is that he survived. That has only raised the stakes for what the presumptive Republican presidential nominee needs to do in August… Over the next four weeks, he will need to do what the campaign long has said he would do, which is to introduce himself to the voters in a much more positive and appealing way. He’s known now more for his wealth than anything else, and not in a way that’s helpful.”

*** Team Romney rakes in another $100 million in July: Here’s another way the Romney campaign is trying to turn the page: by releasing its fundraising numbers. Early this morning, it announced that Team Romney (so the campaign, the RNC, the victory fund) raised $101.3 million in July. It’s the second-straight month it has pulled in more than $100 million, though this is down slightly from the $106.1 million in June. By comparison, Team Obama raked in $70 million in June. But our normal caveat here: Do note that this $101.3 million isn't the amount raised by the Romney CAMPAIGN -- it's the total raised by all three entities (campaign, RNC, victory fund). Ditto the cash on hand. And as we continually find out when we see the actual numbers filed with the FEC, the Obama campaign outraises the Romney campaign in the apples-to-apples comparison.

*** Yesterday’s tragic shooting in Wisconsin: It’s hard to ignore the second mass shooting in just over two weeks. Yesterday in Wisconsin a gunman opened fire at a Sikh temple, killing six and wounding others. Both Obama and Romney issued statements. “At this difficult time, the people of Oak Creek [WI] must know that the American people have them in our thoughts and prayers, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who were killed and wounded,” Obama said. “This was a senseless act of violence and a tragedy that should never befall any house of worship. Our hearts are with the victims, their families, and the entire Oak Creek Sikh community,” Romney added.

*** The Paul Ryan boomlet: All of a sudden, there has been VP buzz surrounding House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Much of this is coming from conservatives who are still trying to get excited about Romney’s candidacy. (See the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol.) And these are the same folks who have been pushing Marco Rubio, but who probably see the handwriting on the wall here.

*** GOP convention unveils a list of its speakers: Last night, the Tampa Bay Times reported that seven Republicans -- Rick Scott, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Nikki Haley, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich and Susana Martinez -- will speak at the GOP convention. However, it’s very possible that none of these speakers will address in the primetime part of the convention, and the Tampa Bay Times notes that the RNC has yet released the day or time for these speeches. But here’s what we do know: If you were thinking there was an outside chance that Romney could pick Condi Rice or Susana Martinez as his VP running mate, this news pretty much eliminates that possibility.

*** Landing a punch on Plouffe: Remember when we wrote late last week that Republicans were targeting high-profile members of the Obama campaign? Well, this news isn’t going to stop that. The Washington Post: “David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser who was President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, accepted a $100,000 speaking fee in 2010 from an affiliate of a company doing business with Iran’s government. A subsidiary of MTN Group, a South Africa-based telecommunications company, paid Plouffe for two speeches he made in Nigeria in December 2010, about a month before he joined the White House staff.” But allies of Plouffe push back on this article, noting that folks like Colin Powell gave speeches to firms cited for financing ties to Iran before joining the Bush administration. What’s more, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of quid pro quo. Nevertheless, the article lands a punch on Plouffe.

*** And profiling Stu Stevens: But Plouffe isn’t the only high-ranking adviser getting scrutiny. The New Republic profiles top Romney strategist Stuart Stevens. Among the revelations, Stevens told friends in 2008 -- including his book editor -- that he planned to vote for Obama in 2008. (Stevens says he didn’t vote for Obama.) It also notes that Stevens has written the screenplay for an HBO movie about how the New York Times uncovered Bush’s domestic-spying initiatives. And the New Republic reports that Stevens -- when working for McCain in ’07 -- urged the Arizona senator to hit Romney hard during that cycle’s GOP presidential primary. The McCain campaign didn’t think that strategy was good advice.

*** On the trail: Obama raises money in Connecticut, while Romney is down… For the rest of the week, Obama stumps in Colorado on Wednesday and Thursday… And Romney hits Illinois and Iowa on Tuesday.

Countdown to GOP convention: 21 days
Countdown to Dem convention: 28 days
Countdown to 1^st presidential debate: 58 days
Countdown to VP debate: 66 days
Countdown to 2^nd presidential debate: 71 days
Countdown to 3^rd presidential debate: 77 days
Countdown to Election Day: 92 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

By Justin Elliott
ProPublica

After a bruising months-long fight between media corporations and the Federal Communications Commission, a government website came online Thursday that will feature political ad data from television stations around the country.

This means that detailed files about political advertising — which show who is buying political ads, how much they are paying, and when the ads are running, among other information — will finally be available online. In the past, those interested in the files, which are by law public, had to travel to stations to get physical copies.

Though the new system is far from perfect, it will likely give the public and journalists a new window into how an expected few billion dollars are spent on political ads on local television this election cycle.

For now, only the affiliates of the top four broadcast networks in the top 50 markets will have to upload their political files to the FCC site. (The Sunlight Foundation has a map of the missing markets here.) All broadcasters will have to start complying in July 2014.  And the rule is not retroactive for political ad data — so the site will only have information on political ad buys going forward.

The FCC requires broadcasters to upload information on political ad purchases “as soon as possible, which the Commission has determined is immediately absent extraordinary circumstances.”

So what can we find on the new site? So far, not very much. Few broadcasters have uploaded files. But there are a few examples of what we’ll get more of in the coming weeks.

Here, for example, are the files posted by WCPO, the ABC affiliate in Cincinatti. If you navigate to the “Federal” folder, then the “President” folder, then the “Obama” folder, you will find this contract (.pdf) for an ad buy the campaign made this week.

You can see that GMMB Inc, a Democratic ad firm in Washington that works with the Obama campaign, paid a total of $67,110 for three days worth of ads on the station this week. The ads were targeting the 35+ demographic and ran on shows including Jeopardy and the Jimmy Kimmel Show. The filing does not make clear which specific ad was run.

The new system has a few serious limitations.

It is difficult to get an overall picture of spending by a single campaign, super PAC, or other outside group. You can only search by station name, network affiliation, or channel number, not by, say, typing in the name of the political campaign or outside group that bought an ad. I asked the FCC about this and an agency official who declined to be named said that “plans are to have a search function shortly but the scope is yet undetermined.”

Then there’s the fact that, as we’ve previously noted, the FCC declined to require broadcasters to upload files in a single format. That means that it won’t be easy to aggregate data and analyze it in volume. That’s in contrast, for example, to federal election filings, which are uploaded in a single, so-called “machine-readable” format that can be analyzed with computers.

The head of the FCC’s media bureau has said that putting the files in a single format is a “long-term goal.”

The new FCC website is also still under construction. The “Help” section, for example, is blank. And a page for developers also appears incomplete.

Another part of the public file that is worth keeping an eye on requires broadcasters to post “a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors” of any entity that pays for ads or programming on a “political matter or matter involving the discussion of a controversial issue of public importance.” This could come in handy when, as often happens around Election Day, opaque outside groups are created and start buying ads.

It’s also worth noting that there’s a range of other non-political information from broadcasters’ public file that will be going online, including: information on who owns a station; an Equal Employment Opportunity file describing the racial makeup of a station’s employees; a map showing where a station’s signal reaches;  descriptions of children’s programming on the station; and a range of other information.

ProPublica launched a project earlier this year, Free the Files, to get readers to go to TV stations and send in political files to be posted on our site. Stay tuned for more coverage of the FCC and political ad spending.