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.
3 comments:
Wow, such a good post. I found a lot of this information to be shocking, although as a political science major I suppose I shouldn't have. I think there is so much truth in your final statement, "In the modern election process candidates appear to be campaigning for financial support as much as they are for public support." I believe the mentality behind this is why our current political scene in the U.S. is as messed up as it is and that the sentiment behind campaigns must shift before we see any positive change.
Some of these facts are so troubling. To realize that to become a leader of our country you must embrace all of these millionaires in order to secure the funds to compete with the rest of the candidates. Although I cannot put forth a solution to this problem, I think it is important that we draw attention to this problem. We need more federal regulations on how candidates fundraise to make sure our President isn't influenced by outside interest groups, but acts on whats best for American citizens.
Some of these facts are so troubling. To realize that to become a leader of our country you must embrace all of these millionaires in order to secure the funds to compete with the rest of the candidates. Although I cannot put forth a solution to this problem, I think it is important that we draw attention to this problem. We need more federal regulations on how candidates fundraise to make sure our President isn't influenced by outside interest groups, but acts on whats best for American citizens.
Post a Comment