Election Costs

March 26, 2012

The cost of modern day elections is astronomical but necessary to become a viable candidate. Candidates fund their expensive campaigns through donations which will tally in the millions of dollars. Super PACs capitalize on the relaxed campaign laws to gross millions of dollars for their candidate. Of these super PAC contributors the rich are making a huge splash. The top 100 super PAC donors contribute more than 80% of the total money raised despite being only 3.7% of the total contributors. The top 46 donors alone have contributed $67 million of the $112 million raised this cycle. To be among the top 46 super PAC donors you must make a $500,000 minimum donation! This select group represents members of financial services, energy executives and hoteliers. Almost all are white, conservative men. 

It is possible to track the top super PAC contributors to their candidates as well. Mitt Romney has been receiving large donations from Wall Street which is not surprising considering his back ground with Bain Capital. John Paulson, who received 600% returns by betting against mortgages, has contributed $1 million alone to a Romney super PAC. Donations to Romney’s super PAC peak at about $1 million.

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have all received even larger donations. For example, Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas Sands CEO, and his family have donated $15 million to a Gingrich super PAC. Their $5 million contribution in February accounted for 90% of Gingrich’s super PAC contributions for that month. Ron Paul received a $2.6 million donation from PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel which is 70% of all the money that super PAC had raised.

These massive donations have raised questions about election laws. Many worry about how much money is impacting elections. Some feel that elections are being influenced mainly by wealth and a very small number of political interests. For instance, donors could be making contribution purely based on their financial interests not on their political beliefs. These massive donations were made possible with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling which puts individuals and corporations on equal ground when it comes to independent campaign spending. Super PACs are able to raise an unlimited amount from corporations, unions, associations and individuals for the candidate of their choice.

Super PAC contributors are far more conservative and donations for republicans surpass those of democrats. President Obama does draw in strong support and is expected to do so as the election approaches. The super PACs influence does not end stop at the presidential elections. In fact, its strongest impact could be on the Congressional elections because a little money can go a long way. In either case, a strong case for election finance law reform can be made. It is undeniable that economics is playing one of the strongest roles in modern elections. To be a viable candidate you must have the financial means to fund an expensive nationwide campaign. In the modern election process candidates appear to be campaigning for financial support as much as they are for public support. 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/26/news/economy/super-pac-donors/index.htm?iid=GM

Things Falling Into Place For Obama Re-election

Following the recent rise of Republican and Tea Party followers, it seems that the Obama campaign is starting to regain momentum again. President Obama couldn't ask for better timing as he soon will begin to campaign for re-election. Until recently, many Republicans as well as Democrats weren't very enthusiastic on the job of President Obama, but now many Democratic candidates have been publicly backing his decisions. Due to a recent surge of social issues being pursued by the Republicans (instead of fixing our economic problems) and also to the economy showing some positive signs of improvement, Obama looks to be gaining momentum back for the Democrats. Add this to Obamas unbelievable campaigning skills and the uncertainty of the Republican party's representation and we could see him another four years. For the Republicans, it appears that either Santorum or Gingrich would need to drop out to have any chance of catching Romney. Regardless, this should be an interesting election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/us/politics/democrats-warm-to-obama-as-a-campaign-ally.html?_r=1&ref=us

Iran's Nuclear Program

Iran is still enriching its uranium in its facilities, and in some cases without in international organizations making sure it is all for civil purposes. It is very interesting to see how people argue in both ways. Some people may say that Iran having nuclear weapons is not acceptable. It would be a threat to Israel, and to other countries in the region. It would also start an arm race in the region, with countries arguing self-defense for this arm race. Some others could argue that Iran is a sovereign country, and they could take any decision they want within their territory. No one should tell them what to do. Iran did not intervene in US, or Israel’s decision of having a nuclear program, so why should us intervene in theirs. The international community seems to be leaning on not doing anything without UN approval, or international consensus. My opinion in this matter, is very different from the opinion of people up here. I was born in Venezuela, and we tend to have a different approach to foreign issues. What’s your opinion this?


Sources:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/from-the-atom-bomb-to-attacking-iran-a-leadership-lesson-for-obama-from-our-nuclear-history/2012/03/07/gIQA7Pu2wR_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/un-weigh-legality-iran-strike-brazil-foreign-minister-170354507.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/mar/07/israel-picking-on-ducks?INTCMP=SRC