Slideshow: Voters head to polls on Super Tuesday

A Super PAC supporting Ron Paul was the only major presidential fundraising operation to miss Tuesday's federal deadline for disclosing its donors. The Revolution PAC blamed an error by its credit card company.

Because of bad information provided by the company, the PAC told the Federal Election Commission, it didn't know who its donors were.

The Super PAC is not the same as the official campaign for Paul, a libertarian and Texas Republican member of Congress. The campaign filed its report on time, and by law the PAC can't coordinate its activities with the campaign, although the PAC is operated by Paul supporters, including his former political director.

"To Whom It May Concern," the Revolution PAC wrote to the FEC at 11:48 p.m. ET Tuesday, just 12 minutes before the midnight deadline for its legally required report.

"Please be advised that on the afternoon of Tuesday, Jan 31, Revolution PAC ... was advised by one of its credit card processing vendors that said vendor had provided erroneous information. As a result, credit card donations reported by the vendor and recorded by the PAC were erroneous.

"As we do not have compete details on the specific donations involved, we are unable to correct our information prior to the filing deadline, and are therefore not filing any report at this time.

"We will contact our FEC advisor Feb 1 to determine how best to proceed."

The Super PAC didn't name the credit card company.

The Revolution PAC has been filing its separate reports of expenditures, and has spent $126,000 so far, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

A profile of the group is available from the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan investigative reporting group. Its leaders include Gary Franchi, Web-TV host and director of Restore the Republic, an online clearinghouse and social media site for Ron Paul followers; Lawrence W. Lepard, Venture capital investor at Equity Management Associates, and Penny Langford Freeman, Paul’s former political director.

Two other PACs supporting Paul did file their reports on time.

Endorse Liberty reported $1,020,055 in receipts.

Nearly all of its revenue, $900,000, came from hedge fund manager Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal. The group also got $10,000 from Sean Wheeler of Marietta, Ga., CEO of Pure Hypnosis, which sells a hypnotic treatment for smoking addiction.

A list of the donors to Endorse Liberty is here.

Another pro-Paul PAC, the Santa Rita Super PAC, reported 234,096 in receipts.

Donors to Santa Rita include hedge fund manager Mark Hart III and Shannon Hart, of Fort Worth, $100,000; real estate investor Donald Huffines of Dallas, $50,000; and Patrick Walker of Little Rock, $50,000. All listed their occupation as self-employed investor.

A list of the donors to Santa Rita is here.

Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.

The Ron Paul presidential campaign organization filed its report on time, showing $26,104,721 in receipts and $24,199,806 in expenditures so far in this election.

A list of the campaign's 22,956 donors is here.

Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:

After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million

Casino magnate Adelson's family gave early money to Gingrich PAC

Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC

Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump

Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011

Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers

Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC

Colbert Super PAC raises $1 million; non-satirical PACs to follow

Why doesn't the fact-checking come first?

After a presidential debate, even before the debate has ended, we're able now to read fact-checks from Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact and many news organizations.

But shouldn't the candidates get their facts straight and tell the truth in the first place?

"American politics has become a battle of talking points," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact and Washington bureau chief for The Tampa Bay Times. "Once candidates find a talking point they like, they often stick with it — even when fact-checkers say it's wrong."

Perhaps the first questions in the next presidential debate should be something along these lines...

For Newt Gingrich:

Former Speaker Gingrich, in debate after debate, you've taken credit for balancing four federal budgets when you were the speaker of the House. As has been pointed out repeatedly by fact-checking organizations, the four years of balanced budgets were fiscal 1998 through 2001, but you were in office for only the first two of those budgets. You left the House in January 1999 and had no role in crafting the budgets for the subsequent two years. In addition, you opposed the two tax-raising deals that were largely responsible for balancing the budget. (Fact-checks here from The New York Times and here from The Washington Post.)

Similarly, you said that people can use food stamps "to go to Hawaii," claimed that the ethics charges against you were conducted by "a very partisan political committee," and said that "no federal official at any level is allowed to say 'Merry Christmas.'" 

All these statements were false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard on Gingrich

Equal-time: Questions for the other candidates are below 

It's been nearly five years since PolitiFact and a host of similar services started debunking the most outrageous statements. In that time, have the candidates become more honest?

"Not overall, but we've seen glimpses that they will alter their wording after we've called out a falsehood," Adair said. "For example, the way Newt said the balanced budget line in the last debate was more accurate, because he didn't say the four consecutive years were when he was speaker. So maybe he responded to the fact-checking."

Here are specific follow-up questions for each of the current Republican candidates, as well as President Barack Obama, based on fact-checking by PolitiFact and the major newspapers:

For Mitt Romney:
Former Governor Romney, in every debate so far, you've said something like, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a big part of why we have the housing crisis." But studies have shown that Fannie and Freddie were late to invest in subprime mortgages, following the lead of Wall Street firms that you never mention. (Fact-check from The New York Times here and here.) The unspoken narrative in your comments, and those of the other candidates, panders inaccurately to those who want to believe that loans to unworthy minorities, driven by the Community Reinvestment Act, caused the financial crisis. In fact, most subprime loans were made by lenders who were not covered by the CRA, but who were driven by the need for profits to satisfy their Wall Street investors. Are you trying to deflect blame from Wall Street?

Similarly, you have said repeatedly that President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America," said "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign," and claimed that President Obama's health care law "represents a government takeover of health care."

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Romney.

For Rick Santorum:
Former Senator Santorum, you have repeatedly criticized Gov. Romney's health insurance program in Massachusetts for the so-called individual mandate, for requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Why not mention that in 1994, when you were running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, you supported an individual mandate.

Similarly, you said that an Obama administration policy prohibits people who work with at-risk youth from promoting marriage as a way to avoid poverty, claimed that "a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion," and said, "Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed." 

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Santorum.

For Ron Paul:
Representative Paul, you've said that the United States "is bankrupt." The country isn't unable to pay its debts, nor is it impoverished. The credit rating of the United States is AA+ at Standard & Poor's (one step below the top of a 20-step scale), and AAA at the other rating agencies.

Similarly, you claimed that only a few sentences in your racist and conspiratorial newsletters were inflammatory, that the majority of the American people believe we should go back on the gold standard and that you never vote for legislation unless it's specifically authorized in the Constitution.

All false, according to PolitiFact.

PolitiFact scorecard for Paul.

And in the general election, maybe the first question to the incumbent could start something like this:

For Barack Obama:
President Obama, you've said that most of the money for your campaign came from small donors, that you've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs, that you haven't raised taxes once.

All false, according to PolitiFact.

You've claimed that your opponents plan to cut funding for Israel to zero. PolitiFact rated that claim "Pants on Fire," its lowest rating.

"One theme we've seen in Obama's statements," says PolitiFact's Bill Adair, "is that he is exaggerating how he has fulfilled promises. We know this, of course, because we keep track of all 500+ promises on our Obameter."

PolitiFact scorecard for Obama and Obameter keeping track of his campaign policies

Should the candidates be asked: As you prepare for a debate, is part of your preparation to remind yourself, whatever I say, I should play it straight with the American people? Aren't you embarrassed to repeat statements that any 8th-grader could look up in 20 seconds and discover have been proven untrue? Or do you calculate that it's acceptable to twist the facts to win an election?

Readers, what do you think? What would make the candidates stick to the facts? Add your comments below.