Can 46 rich dudes buy an election?

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, June 23, 2024 00:56
VIEWED: 1767
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

NIKI2

Monday, March 26, 2012 4:01 PM

Lest anyone has forgotten...

Quote:
Taking advantage of relaxed campaign finance laws, a cadre of deep-pocketed donors are spending gobs of money to bankroll super PACs, a phenomenon that is reshaping the modern election cycle.

It is a select group. The top 100 individual super PAC donors make up just 3.7% of those who have contributed to the new money vehicles, but account for more than 80% of the total money raised, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

And just the top 46 donors have given a total of $67 million, or two-thirds of the $112 million in individual gifts to super PACs this cycle. Membership in this select group requires a $500,000 minimum donation.

So who are these folks?

Donors who have given in excess of $500,000 are a rather homogenous group who represent narrow swaths of American industry.

Titans of the financial services industry are well represented, as are energy executives and hoteliers. Almost all are men. Racial minorities are few and far between. So far, the vast majority of their contributions have been made to conservative groups.

"We're looking at a singularly weird phenomenon," said John Dunbar, the managing editor for politics at the Center for Public Integrity.

Critics argue that the eye-popping size of donations from individuals raise important questions about their motivations and the ability of the wealthy to influence candidates and the election.

"American elections are funded by a very narrow range of special interests, and that has the effect of making our democracy look a lot more like a plutocracy," Ryan said.

Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that it is difficult to discern the motivations of super-wealthy donors. Are they driven by ideology, economic interests, or some combination of the two?

Harold Simmons, who played a central role in the development of leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, offered some insight into that question last week.

Simmons has given $18 million to conservative super PACs this cycle, and has pledged millions more. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he displayed a deep unhappiness with President Obama, calling him a "socialist."

At the same time, Simmons' current business interests would benefit greatly from less government regulation of certain industries, and he told the WSJ that if Republicans do well in November, "we can block that crap [regulations]."

"So which is it?" Mann asked. "He may be a good businessman, but if he can make a comment like that about Obama, I'd say his ideology overwhelms his self interest."

To date, conservative super PACs have far outpaced fundraising efforts by Democrats. "The pool of billionaires who can throw tens of millions into the game -- and are inclined to do so -- is concentrated on the right," Mann said.

In the end, the most notable affect of super PACs might not be on the presidential race, but rather on Congressional elections.

Mann and Dunbar both expressed worry about the use of super PAC money in House and Senate races, where relatively small amounts of money can have an outsized impact.

"An individual donor and a super PAC could go off to some district in Kentucky and just completely destroy some candidate because he doesn't favor what's good for your business," Dunbar said. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/super-pac-donors/index.ht
m?iid=GM

"Plutocracy"? To me, "corpocracy" is more like it...

GEEZER

Monday, March 26, 2012 4:55 PM

But interestingly enough, all the current Republican candidates except Romney have raised a higher percentage of their money from small contributions ($200.00 or less) than Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-20/obama-gop--fund
raising-february/53676854/1?loc=interstitialskip

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Monday, March 26, 2012 5:16 PM

Actually, the article doesnt say that.

It gives info which allows one to come to that conclusion for the month of February, but doesnt give percentages anywhere else.

Wow, u even distort your own sources, thats impressive.

Also, he has raised significantly more money from small contributions than all of the repubs combines, just his percentage isnt as high, since he raises so much money.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 26, 2012 5:17 PM

Geezer, it's nice to know you want to get rid of super PACs and abolish the idea that corporations are people. Good on ya!

KWICKO

Monday, March 26, 2012 5:24 PM

As Geezer likes to point out, it's not exactly *lying*, but it's not quite telling the truth, either. I believe he refers to such tactics as "propaganda."

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NIKI2

Monday, March 26, 2012 6:41 PM

I don't think it's that simple. The Republicans have been in a primary, which seems to me more likely to interest people to donate in order to get their candidate nominated. I think I'll wait until the general election really starts to see how the percentages come out. It's natural to me that the Big Guys would be ahead of the curve when it comes to gearing up, and Obama just recently started running. We'll see what the percentages are once it becomes a two-man race.

Doesn't change the fact of who's funding the campaign, and I won't like it if Obama's campaign ends up getting more large donors than small ones, but time will tell.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, March 26, 2012 8:50 PM

Just to be a snarky, right-wing devil's advocate ( and I'm surprised none of them has mentioned this), is Bill Mahr one of those 46 guys? Does his $1 million to the Obama Super PAC count?

GEEZER

Monday, March 26, 2012 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
Actually, the article doesnt say that.

It gives info which allows one to come to that conclusion for the month of February, but doesnt give percentages anywhere else.

Wow, u even distort your own sources, thats impressive.

Read it again. Looks like your bias is what's doing the distorting.

The chart at the top of the article is total contributions as of Feb. 29.

"Here's a look at how much cash and debt the five leading presidential candidates have accumulated as of Feb. 29."

Then the columns are labeled "Candidate" and "Total Receipts"

Farther down in the article it notes Obama raised $21.3 in February, but the $172,704,222 in the chart, and all other figures there, are total accumulations for the 2012 election cycle.

GEEZER

Monday, March 26, 2012 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, it's nice to know you want to get rid of super PACs and abolish the idea that corporations are people. Good on ya!

SignyM, I've always though corporations should be treated like corporations. As I recall, you're the one who proposed they be treated, in some instances, as individuals.

GEEZER

Monday, March 26, 2012 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As Geezer likes to point out, it's not exactly *lying*, but it's not quite telling the truth, either. I believe he refers to such tactics as "propaganda."

No, Mike. I call it BHM failing reading comprehension.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE