View Full Version : Candidates Raise Record Sums of Money
IMPress Polly
07-11-2015, 02:13 PM
Wow! The people behind real estate tycoon and investment banker Jeb Bush, who has recently explained that "people need to work longer hours" to increase the productivity of the economy and stimulate growth (:rollseyes:), have announced that they've raised $114 million in campaign money: more than double the previous record for this point in the campaign season of $50 million set in 2003 by Jeb's brother when he was running for re-election! Don't get too excited about a groundswell of popular support behind him though folks: $103 million of it was donated not to Jeb's actual campaign, but to the Right to Rise Super PAC that's supporting him. For those who don't know, Super PACs are basically concentrations of corporate donations. It's advantageous for well-connected people with lots of wealthy friends to win donations to Super PACs rather than directly to their campaigns because, while the maximum size of legal campaign donations remains capped at $2,700 per person, thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, there is no longer any legal limit to the size of contributions one can offer to political action committees. Thus most every candidate running has what we call a Super PAC (at least one anyway; sometimes more than one) supporting them. The size of the average donation to Jeb's Super PAC (which, as you can see, accounts for more than 90% of his campaign money so far) exceeded $10,000, including numerous contributions of over $1 million.
Republican candidate Ted Cruz also broke the $50 million record set by George W. Bush in 2003, acquiring $52 million in campaign donations, also mostly through his collection of Super PACs. ($38 million in donations to his Super PACs versus $14 million in direct campaign donations.) All four of Ted Cruz's Super PACs are financed by a single individual: billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, who also sits on the board of the organization responsible for the "Clinton Cash" conspiracy theory. Then of course there is the xenophobic billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump (perhaps you've heard of him? :wink:) who is so filthy rich that he can finance his own campaign, evidently to great effect as recent polling finds him pulling into first place for the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, the picture is somewhat different: all Democratic candidates are relying principally on direct contributions (the kind that are capped at a $2,700 legal maximum) rather than mainly relying on Super PAC donations (which have no size limits) like their Republican counterparts. Hillary Clinton raised $69 million, placing her well behind Jeb Bush in fundraising, with $45 million of that money being direct campaign contributions. However, between the $24 million her Super PAC has raised and the estimated $19.5 million she has raised directly at lavish fundraisers attended only by the super-rich, the overall majority of her campaign money is coming from the wealthy elite as well, yes despite the fairly populist campaign she's running!
The case of Bernie Sanders is particularly telling though, as he actually has more donors than any other candidate. 250,000 people have donated to the Sanders campaign for president, and the average size of these donations is just $33.51, with 99.4% of Sanders donations being $250 or less in size. Yet this clearly popular grassroots campaign, which has, again, attracted more donors than any other so far, is dwarfed in financial muscle by the multitude of other candidates relying on the super-rich to bankroll their campaigns. So far Sanders has raised $15 million. I think this points to the dramatic realities of how blatantly skewed the project of democracy is in America right now. Sanders, with 250,000 donors, can raise only $15 million, while Bush, with hardly 5% as many donors supporting his campaign (only a little over 10,000 total), can out-raise Sanders by nearly $100 million. In other words, for every TV commercial and ad that Bernie Sanders can afford to run, Jeb Bush can run eight simply because he and his friends are richer than Sanders and his friends. It is this kind of profound, structural unfairness that drives people to Bernie's campaign, which calls for a "political revolution in this country" to end the political and economic dictatorship of corporate America.
PolWatch
07-11-2015, 02:32 PM
PACs provide the best government money can buy....and we are not allowed to know who owns them!
donttread
07-11-2015, 03:22 PM
Wow! The people behind real estate tycoon and investment banker Jeb Bush, who has recently explained that "people need to work longer hours" to increase the productivity of the economy and stimulate growth (:rollseyes:), have announced that they've raised $114 million in campaign money: more than double the previous record for this point in the campaign season of $50 million set in 2003 by Jeb's brother when he was running for re-election! Don't get too excited about a groundswell of popular support behind him though folks: $103 million of it was donated not to Jeb's actual campaign, but to the Right to Rise Super PAC that's supporting him. For those who don't know, Super PACs are basically concentrations of corporate donations. It's advantageous for well-connected people with lots of wealthy friends to win donations to Super PACs rather than directly to their campaigns because, while the maximum size of legal campaign donations remains capped at $2,700 per person, thanks to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, there is no longer any legal limit to the size of contributions one can offer to political action committees. Thus most every candidate running has what we call a Super PAC (at least one anyway; sometimes more than one) supporting them. The size of the average donation to Jeb's Super PAC (which, as you can see, accounts for more than 90% of his campaign money so far) exceeded $10,000, including numerous contributions of over $1 million.
Republican candidate Ted Cruz also broke the $50 million record set by George W. Bush in 2003, acquiring $52 million in campaign donations, also mostly through his collection of Super PACs. ($38 million in donations to his Super PACs versus $14 million in direct campaign donations.) All four of Ted Cruz's Super PACs are financed by a single individual: billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, who also sits on the board of the organization responsible for the "Clinton Cash" conspiracy theory. Then of course there is the xenophobic billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump (perhaps you've heard of him? :wink:) who is so filthy rich that he can finance his own campaign, evidently to great effect as recent polling finds him pulling into first place for the Republican nomination.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, the picture is somewhat different: all Democratic candidates are relying principally on direct contributions (the kind that are capped at a $2,700 legal maximum) rather than mainly relying on Super PAC donations (which have no size limits) like their Republican counterparts. Hillary Clinton raised $69 million, placing her well behind Jeb Bush in fundraising, with $45 million of that money being direct campaign contributions. However, between the $24 million her Super PAC has raised and the estimated $19.5 million she has raised directly at lavish fundraisers attended only by the super-rich, the overall majority of her campaign money is coming from the wealthy elite as well, yes despite the fairly populist campaign she's running!
The case of Bernie Sanders is particularly telling though, as he actually has more donors than any other candidate. 250,000 people have donated to the Sanders campaign for president, and the average size of these donations is just $33.51, with 99.4% of Sanders donations being $250 or less in size. Yet this clearly popular grassroots campaign, which has, again, attracted more donors than any other so far, is dwarfed in financial muscle by the multitude of other candidates relying on the super-rich to bankroll their campaigns. So far Sanders has raised $15 million. I think this points to the dramatic realities of how blatantly skewed the project of democracy is in America right now. Sanders, with 250,000 donors, can raise only $15 million, while Bush, with hardly 5% as many donors supporting his campaign (only a little over 10,000 total), can out-raise Sanders by nearly $100 million. In other words, for every TV commercial and ad that Bernie Sanders can afford to run, Jeb Bush can run eight simply because he and his friends are richer than Sanders and his friends. It is this kind of profound, structural unfairness that drives people to Bernie's campaign, which calls for a "political revolution in this country" to end the political and economic dictatorship of corporate America.
You ain't seen nothin yet
Common
07-11-2015, 03:32 PM
Record sums of money and I would bet from far less donors. The middle class cant afford to be giving polticians money. Its all billionaire cash buying the country
PolWatch
07-11-2015, 03:38 PM
Record sums of money and I would bet from far less donors. The middle class cant afford to be giving polticians money. Its all billionaire cash buying the country
Most of us don't have enough money to buy influence. Instead of being concerned that our system is for sale to the highest bidder, some are only concerned that their side has the most billionaires.....they get what they pay for....special tax laws, subsidies and a blind eye to any inconvenient violations.
Green Arrow
07-11-2015, 03:53 PM
Pretty much why Sanders is my candidate.
PolWatch
07-11-2015, 06:13 PM
I don't expect to find a candidate that I agree with 100%....I would like to find one that I can at least believe is honest. Sanders is looking like that rarest of all creatures, an honest man....but who knows? I admire Paul on some of his positions but I think he is too easily swayed. I admire Webb's service to the nation and his knowledge on foreign issues but I don't know enough about the social issues. I don't like Bush because we don't need a third Bush president. Clinton...I haven't like her since she changed her vote on the invasion of Iraq. The rest of the candidates are entertainment. Trump is comic relief.
IMPress Polly
07-11-2015, 07:00 PM
PolWatch wrote:
Trump is comic relief.
He is indeed! Have you heard of the Trumpweb? Or Trumping your cat? These are just some of the related amusements out there that I've already seen fit to enjoy thoroughly. :grin:
zelmo1234
07-11-2015, 07:12 PM
Record sums of money and I would bet from far less donors. The middle class cant afford to be giving polticians money. Its all billionaire cash buying the country
Not to worry the unions don't usually waste there cash on the primaries.
PolWatch
07-11-2015, 07:17 PM
Cheer up. At 900 million to buy the presidency, the Koch brothers should have it in the bag. At least you will know who owns the presidency.
Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-network-announces-889-million-budget-for-next-two-years/22363809/
zelmo1234
07-11-2015, 07:18 PM
Well good for the Koch brothers. If the country is as successful as their business then we should do pretty good.
zelmo1234
07-11-2015, 07:20 PM
I don't expect to find a candidate that I agree with 100%....I would like to find one that I can at least believe is honest. Sanders is looking like that rarest of all creatures, an honest man....but who knows? I admire Paul on some of his positions but I think he is too easily swayed. I admire Webb's service to the nation and his knowledge on foreign issues but I don't know enough about the social issues. I don't like Bush because we don't need a third Bush president. Clinton...I haven't like her since she changed her vote on the invasion of Iraq. The rest of the candidates are entertainment. Trump is comic relief.
I think you might be right on the honesty thing. I just can't stand his policies.
IMPress Polly
07-12-2015, 04:17 AM
Seriously Zelmo, union money cannot begin to compete with corporate money in an unliminted-spending environment. That's why all the unions are against the Citizens United ruling. And they have actually taken a form of political action in the primary debates already in that, for example, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Bernie Sanders.
Peter1469
07-12-2015, 07:43 AM
Congress should have taken action against Union political donations a long time ago. Now we have a SCOTUS ruling that would make that hard to do. Now money is more than out of control in politics.
PolWatch
07-12-2015, 07:58 AM
Congress should have taken action against Union political donations a long time ago. Now we have a SCOTUS ruling that would make that hard to do. Now money is more than out of control in politics.
I think the plan was to ensure they all got the same huge amounts. I don't see any politician making an effort to reduce the amount they get....only to limit the other guy.
IMPress Polly
07-12-2015, 08:42 AM
Many of us political activist types are dismayed by the rise of dynasty politics in this country of late, and particularly with the yes very plausible prospect (in fact it is the greatest possibility) of a Bush vs. Clinton contest that'll make you feel like nothing has changed in more than two decades. Woefully though, that is where we're at in more than one area of American society.
You know me: I'm a film and gaming aficianada. Therefore I will draw my comparison based on where these artistic mediums are today, at this same juncture. People love sequels, and that's especially true when production costs skyrocket as they are today in both the gaming and filmmaking mediums. The more one must invest to make a successful movie or game, the more incentive there is to be less risky with the contents because consumers tend to think in a risk-averse way too when it comes to sinking their money into a $20 moviegoing experience or a $60 retail game. This mutual risk-aversion ensures that most of what we see advertised is familiar in some important way to us. Sequels and remakes abound in the current climate of skyrocketing production costs. A look at the top-selling films of the year makes this clear. The top three biggest ticket-sellers of the year so far are: Jurassic World, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Furious 7. All of them are sequels and all of them are objectively terrible films (e.g. no character development, 70% reliance on stylized action scenes at bare minimum, etc.), but it doesn't matter because tens of millions of people (mostly men :wink:) are stupid enough to buy a ticket anyway (without my ulterior motive of publicly lamenting them, that is) just because these are familiar properties. No need to make an emotionally rich and thought-provoking movie when you can sell more tickets by just lazily throwing money at it and slapping a familiar title on the masthead because people are suckers.
A look at the top-selling games of last year reveals a similar bias favoring not-exactly-deep male-oriented sequels to and remakes of franchises that have been around for seemingly forever. The biggest title announced at this year's E3 in terms of popular reception was a Final Fantasy VII remake if that says anything to you. Even on TV, though I know much less about television, I can't help but feel like retro-mania in that medium as well is reaching truly comedic proportions with everything from a sequel series to Boy Meets World to a sequel series to Full House being announced, along with the return of Salt N Peppa, Morpheus and Agent Smith from the Matrix trilogy, and far, far, far beyond. Clearly people like familiar franchises because they involve so little investment risk...theoretically. Huge corporations like making them and millions and millions and millions of consumers like spending their money on them.
What we're seeing with the emergence of dynasty politics in modern America, in part thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 (though it was something of a problem even before that), is the political expression of that same cultural phenomenon: skyrocketing costs leading to more sequels. In this case, it's the soaring cost of running a competitive political campaign leading to more "sequel" candidates, especially for the highest public offices: Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul. Last names are now a form of political brand and increasingly the only ones politically viable now that we have pretty much fully commercialized the campaign process. Thus do we begin a descent in the general direction of monarchy, as the alternative of trying something genuinely new would involve too much risk.
May I propose that, in answer, we DE-commercialize the campaign process?
Peter1469
07-12-2015, 09:27 AM
Many of us political activist types are dismayed by the rise of dynasty politics in this country of late, and particularly with the yes very plausible prospect (in fact it is the greatest possibility) of a Bush vs. Clinton contest that'll make you feel like nothing has changed in more than two decades. Woefully though, that is where we're at in more than one area of American society.
Agree 100% and have been saying this for a while.
PolWatch
07-12-2015, 09:29 AM
How many people unconsciously recreate old, familiar situations? Even those with negative results? Abused women marrying multiple abusers is one of the most common examples of this trait.
IMPress Polly
07-12-2015, 09:47 AM
PolWatch wrote:
How many people unconsciously recreate old, familiar situations? Even those with negative results? Abused women marrying multiple abusers is one of the most common examples of this trait.
Hadn't thought about it quite that way before, but that's a REALLY good point.
donttread
07-12-2015, 12:00 PM
Seriously Zelmo, union money cannot begin to compete with corporate money in an unliminted-spending environment. That's why all the unions are against the Citizens United ruling. And they have actually taken a form of political action in the primary debates already in that, for example, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Bernie Sanders.
True the USSC sold out and what little of government wasn't already owned by corporate America. Our real non - violent revolution must be waged against the megacorps, not the government. The government is merely their puppet
Peter1469
07-12-2015, 12:18 PM
True the USSC sold out and what little of government wasn't already owned by corporate America. Our real non - violent revolution must be waged against the megacorps, not the government. The government is merely their puppet
Watch out, the megacorps can hire mercenaries who are mostly ex-SoF.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.