Posted on Oct 12, 2015
3
3
0
From "The NY Times"
The Families Funding the 2016 election
They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.
Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.
These donors’ fortunes reflect the shifting composition of the country’s economic elite. Relatively few work in the traditional ranks of corporate America, or hail from dynasties of inherited wealth. Most built their own businesses, parlaying talent and an appetite for risk into huge wealth: They founded hedge funds in New York, bought up undervalued oil leases in Texas, made blockbusters in Hollywood. More than a dozen of the elite donors were born outside the United States, immigrating from countries like Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and Israel.
But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too.
Mostly Backing Republicans
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
The Families Funding the 2016 election
They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.
Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.
These donors’ fortunes reflect the shifting composition of the country’s economic elite. Relatively few work in the traditional ranks of corporate America, or hail from dynasties of inherited wealth. Most built their own businesses, parlaying talent and an appetite for risk into huge wealth: They founded hedge funds in New York, bought up undervalued oil leases in Texas, made blockbusters in Hollywood. More than a dozen of the elite donors were born outside the United States, immigrating from countries like Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and Israel.
But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs. While such measures would help protect their own wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that would allow others to prosper, too.
Mostly Backing Republicans
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
COL Ted Mc Just another NYT hit piece pushing regulation over campaign financing. Ignoring the millions funneled from Unions into the Dem party, Soro's, Gates, Buffet foundations.
(5)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC John Shaw - Colonel; The rats don't come out of their holes if you shine lights on them.
(1)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
COL Ted Mc - seems like your getting all in things that to an athiest shouldnt matter. Its all chemicals remember? Or do you pretend politics matter in the absolutely random accidental existence? Try wandering around drunk and see if you end up in that bar by accident…. Order your drink and enjoy but dont act like you finding that bar was predestined....its like everything else in your philosophy…. Simply a random accidental occurrence.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; I will decide what matters to me - not you.
Alternatively - "Who are you to decide what God tells me matters?".
Alternatively - "Who are you to decide what God tells me matters?".
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Of course you decide what matters to you but you defend the argument that its all just chemicals so im simply pointing out the hypocrisy of you acting as though something matters…. In this case Hillary's suspicious communist donors…. Of course you can say it matters but it doesnt fit with your worldview that its all just chemicals. Thats the hypocrisy of humanism that the earlier post was about. Its kind of like a politician saying he is against child sex slaves then going home to his kiddie porn dungeon in the basement.
(0)
(0)
SMSgt Tony Barnes
PVT James Strait - I've don't the research...and actually there are very few substantiated cases of vote manipulation. Voter manipulation is a different matter.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next