Posted on Oct 2, 2015
Do our votes really mean anything with Dark Money, SuperPACs, And The Forbes 400?
10.1K
86
56
14
14
0
Do our votes really mean anything with Dark Money, SuperPACs, And The Forbes 400?
The relationship between power and money is undeniable. The cost of running a successful presidential campaign has ballooned, with 2012′s presidential election standing at a record-shattering $2.6 billion. Some expect that number will be topped this cycle. Yet current regulation and the Supreme Court have set the rules against transparency, meaning the ultra-wealthy, most of which can be found in the pages of the latest issue of Forbes (or online here), can use their checkbooks as they like while responding to no one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/10/02/the-koch-brothers-paradox-dark-money-superpacs-and-the-forbes-400/
If there’s any group in the position to move big money toward candidates and causes in the 2016 election, it’s the richest 400 Americans. One of the most politically active of that group, Charles Koch, told Forbes in an exclusive interview that the extended network of political organizations he and his brother control will spend $900 million to influence U.S. policy this presidential cycle, with some $300 million channeled directly into the race for the White House. Yet, when FORBES tallied the publicly available numbers for what the members of The Forbes 400 have made in political donations in 2015, the total was $60.5 million – a drop in the ocean. Together, brothers Charles and David Koch have donated a relatively paltry sum of $32,345 so far –at least publicly.
As we parsed data on political giving ahead of the release Tuesday of The Forbes 400, we found several patterns. First, the era of the SuperPAC and unlimited donations is among us; giving to these organizations dwarf anything directly donated to individual candidates, or even their parties. Second, the so-called “dark money” is where the action is, but because such donations don’t have to be disclosed, they are impossible to track.
Data from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics’ (which runs the Open Secrets website) shows that at least 53%, or 213 billionaires from the The Forbes 400 made political donations this cycle. The five biggest political givers handed out more than $3 million apiece. Kelcy Warren topped the charts of publicly disclosed donations with $6.1 million (to a PAC for Rick Perry, who’s dropped out), followed by Diane Hendricks ($5.1 million to Scott Walker, who’s also dropped out), Paul Singer ($3.45 million), Oracle ORCL +0.00%’s Larry Ellison ($3.04 million), and Houston Texans owner Robert McNair ($3.03 million). The Koch brothers were nowhere near the top, while the controversial George Soros stood at ninth place, with a relatively meager $2.1 million donated this cycle. When compared to the $6.3 billion spent in the 2012 election, which secured President Obama a second term and the $2.34 trillion in combined net worth for the The Forbes 400, the political giving numbers this year seem awfully small. ( See this article for more on The Forbes 400 members who made the biggest political donations so far this year.)
The relationship between power and money is undeniable. The cost of running a successful presidential campaign has ballooned, with 2012′s presidential election standing at a record-shattering $2.6 billion. Some expect that number will be topped this cycle. Yet current regulation and the Supreme Court have set the rules against transparency, meaning the ultra-wealthy, most of which can be found in the pages of the latest issue of Forbes (or online here), can use their checkbooks as they like while responding to no one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/10/02/the-koch-brothers-paradox-dark-money-superpacs-and-the-forbes-400/
If there’s any group in the position to move big money toward candidates and causes in the 2016 election, it’s the richest 400 Americans. One of the most politically active of that group, Charles Koch, told Forbes in an exclusive interview that the extended network of political organizations he and his brother control will spend $900 million to influence U.S. policy this presidential cycle, with some $300 million channeled directly into the race for the White House. Yet, when FORBES tallied the publicly available numbers for what the members of The Forbes 400 have made in political donations in 2015, the total was $60.5 million – a drop in the ocean. Together, brothers Charles and David Koch have donated a relatively paltry sum of $32,345 so far –at least publicly.
As we parsed data on political giving ahead of the release Tuesday of The Forbes 400, we found several patterns. First, the era of the SuperPAC and unlimited donations is among us; giving to these organizations dwarf anything directly donated to individual candidates, or even their parties. Second, the so-called “dark money” is where the action is, but because such donations don’t have to be disclosed, they are impossible to track.
Data from the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics’ (which runs the Open Secrets website) shows that at least 53%, or 213 billionaires from the The Forbes 400 made political donations this cycle. The five biggest political givers handed out more than $3 million apiece. Kelcy Warren topped the charts of publicly disclosed donations with $6.1 million (to a PAC for Rick Perry, who’s dropped out), followed by Diane Hendricks ($5.1 million to Scott Walker, who’s also dropped out), Paul Singer ($3.45 million), Oracle ORCL +0.00%’s Larry Ellison ($3.04 million), and Houston Texans owner Robert McNair ($3.03 million). The Koch brothers were nowhere near the top, while the controversial George Soros stood at ninth place, with a relatively meager $2.1 million donated this cycle. When compared to the $6.3 billion spent in the 2012 election, which secured President Obama a second term and the $2.34 trillion in combined net worth for the The Forbes 400, the political giving numbers this year seem awfully small. ( See this article for more on The Forbes 400 members who made the biggest political donations so far this year.)
Voting
Election 2016
Elections
Wealth
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 22
9
9
0
Hopefully our individual votes will continue to mean something COL Mikel J. Burroughs.
I am certain that votes mean more in local elections than national elections.
I am certain that votes mean more in local elections than national elections.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Unless you are willing to be a multi-billionaires whore, your name can not be placed on the ballot. The flow of information (media) is controlled by the mega-elite already in power. They will let you know who is to be built up/knocked down and keep us at each other's throats. The only thing keeping our 'elite' from turning the little guy into 'soylent green' is the 2nd Amendment.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
It is quite absurd and absolutely ignominious that money has been allowed to decimate the wishes of popular electorates in the once globally-dubbed "best democracy". Any form of lobbying is tantamount to corruption, plain and simple. For our democracy to retain its lofty ideals and appeal to sound logic as the epitome of best form of governance, something quite drastic has to be done to reform political funding. Otherwise, the present paradigm is symbolic for the popular axiom "He who pays the piper dictates the tune."
(6)
(0)
SFC Mark Merino
You get my vote Maj (Join to see). But I fear that your common sense approach will have no place in politics.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
What I'll call, low level corruption, and bought influence, is not a new thing. It may not be good, but it is not really good or helping to demonize its use and those who use it. Representative David Crockett bought whiskey barrels and gave out drinks in bars, pubs, and trading posts at his candidacy speeches, might as well give out money. It's been going on a long time.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Well Capt, there is your problem. We are NOT a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Look up Article 4 Section 4 in the constitution and you will find out what type of government we are "guaranteed" to have. Hint: It is NOT a democracy.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google