How the GOP ‘super PAC’ has funded the 2016 election coverage

By Matt Stinchcombe, APIn a world of political money, there are few better ways to make a name for yourself than to buy a presidential candidate.

But it’s not always easy for people to buy ads for their political candidates, and there are two main types of super PACs that can use the money they raise to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections.

The first type is a super PAC that is not registered as a political committee.

These are organizations that are created by individuals or corporations and are controlled by those people or corporations.

The second type is the so-called super PAC, which is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is typically controlled by a political party.

The most famous super PAC of the last election cycle was super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, which spent nearly $2 million to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election.

It’s a super-PAC that’s not registered with the Federal Election Commission as a 501 (c)(3), so it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, and it can spend unlimited amounts on TV ads.

Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group that spent $1.5 million on television ads in 2016, is one of the largest and most active super PACs in the country.

Its president, David Brock, is a former executive director of the American Federation for Children, and he has also worked for President Barack Obama.

American Bridge has been accused of being an aggressive and aggressive advocate of Democratic politics, and Brock has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump.

While Brock and American Bridge spent millions of dollars in 2016 to help Trump, their efforts may have hurt Clinton by helping the GOP defeat her in the general election.

According to data compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs spent about $6.7 million on TV advertisements in the 2016 campaign, compared to less than $4 million by Republicans.

The Republican Party’s super PAC also spent more than $5 million in the same election cycle.

But a super PACs isn’t the only place where super PACs can influence the election.

Priorities USA Action, a super group that was founded by former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, spent about half a million dollars on TV commercials in the election, including about $500,000 on Trump.

And former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer, who joined the Trump campaign in the fall, was a key supporter of Super PACs.

Spicer was a prominent surrogate for Trump, and his presence in the Trump presidential campaign helped the super PAC get more airtime in the early days of the race, as it was unable to spend much money on ads.

Spicer and Manafort, however, are no longer associated with the Trump operation, and Spicer resigned his position in June.

Spokesman Sean Spicer is seen in this undated photo.

Associated Press/APThe super PACs supporting Clinton in 2016 didn’t have the same reach as those backing Trump.

Clinton received more than 1.3 million television ads from super PACs, according to data from Media Matters.

But that figure is inflated by the fact that Super PACs can spend money on ad buys on cable news, social media and other platforms.

The Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton spent about two and a half times as much as Super PACs backing Donald Trump, according of the data compiled for The Center on Media and Democracy by The New York Times.

In a way, the Super PACs helping Clinton in the Democratic primary helped the candidate because of their spending power.

But in the end, they didn’t do much to help her.

Clinton is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, and super PACs are expected to spend billions of dollars this election cycle to help elect her.

It may not be enough, but it’s a start.