“A whopping 95 percent of the TV ad spending in the Republican presidential race has come from outside groups and Super PACs, while just 5 percent comes from the actual campaigns,” according to an NBC News analysis of TV ad spending.

“The opposite is true on the Democratic side — 95 percent of the TV ad spending in the Democratic presidential contest has come from the campaigns, versus just 5 percent from outside groups.”

“We’re so lawyered up I feel like a Clinton.”

— GOP strategist Mike Murphy, quoted by Bloomberg, on what it takes to run a super PAC.

Politico: “In the next 17 hours, the contours of both presidential nominating contests will become clearer. The campaign finance filings for the third fund-raising quarter of the year are due by midnight. They will contain not just how much was raised from whom, but exactly how much money each campaign had in the bank as of Sept. 30.”

Bloomberg: “The departure of Perry and Walker leaves money on the table. The two ex-candidates can refund their contributors or give the money to other campaigns. Their Q3 filings could provide the first indication of whether their donors want their money back or will let their former favorites play kingmaker.”

The New York Times notes that 158 families have given at least $250,000 to a presidential campaign this year.

“In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies. Two-thirds of Americans support higher taxes on those earning $1 million or more a year, according to a June New York Times/CBS News poll, while six in 10 favor more government intervention to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.”

New York Times: “In an election cycle that is already on track to break spending records, and with few limits on contributions to ‘super PACs’ and other outside groups, big donors have never been more important. No longer satisfied with sitting on the sidelines and writing big checks, many of them are eager to play larger roles in the campaigns.”

“They expect their views to be heard quickly and their concerns taken seriously, sometimes creating headaches and potential awkwardness for the campaigns and super PACs, which must tend to the contributors and their seemingly endless suggestions and questions.”

“The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue ­million-dollar donors with zeal,” the Washington Post reports.

“Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to $1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about $1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.”

“Democrats are laying the groundwork for an ambitious reorganization of their struggling network of “super PACs” that would exploit the loopholes and legal gray areas that Republicans have already used to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the 2016 campaign through such groups,” the New York Times reports.

“The plans, laid out by the party’s top election lawyers in an emergency request filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, would pave the way for the creation of a host of new super PACs tailored to individual House and Senate candidates.”

Hillary Clinton “is rolling out a policy plan Tuesday aimed at lifting the veil on some of the wealthy donors who have bankrolled political campaigns while taking advantage of laws that allow them to remain anonymous. Mrs. Clinton, who along with her husband has been among the most prodigious fundraisers in U.S. history, is also proposing ways to give candidates more incentives to collect money from small donors,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Donald Trump “called for more transparency in campaign fundraising and attacked Jeb Bush supporters for using super PACs to raise substantial money for his presidential bid,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

Said Trump: “This nonsense with PACs, and they don’t coordinate with other people? Do you really believe that doesn’t happen?”

Wall Street Journal: “Some Republican presidential candidates could be in for sticker shock… The expanding roles of super PACs and a condensed nominating calendar are fundamentally transforming the way the 2016 primary campaign will be conducted. Gone are the days when campaigns could just scrape together enough money to advertise in Iowa and New Hampshire, counting on an early victory to spur an infusion of fresh contributions.”