This article is all about the super PAC Restore Our Future and how they are using money to support/derail candidates from the GOP presidential nomination.
Money is mentioned many times to show the difference between how much they are spending on attack ads for Gingrich and Santorum vs. support ads for Romney. They attribute the numbers for $35 million spent on attack ads vs. $1.1 million spent on support ads to Center for Responsive Politics, who track political money handling.
The reporter also uses numbers to describe the amount of broadcast spots that Romney's campaign has released since the beginning of his campaign: 12,817 spots, according to the CMAG, which doesn't seem to be written out anywhere before that mention.
Also, the reporter uses the number of negative ads that Restore Our Future has released: 41,612 vs. the number of ads that have come from Gingrich's and Santorum's campaigns: 8,172 and 8,121.
I think that the numbers make it easy to see direct comparisons. However, this is an emotionally charged article, obviously against Restore Our Future (understandably). There weren't really any percentages or percent change figures, which would have been more compelling since the campaigns are on completely different scales. Also, there could have been clearer attributions.