Posted on Oct 2, 2015
Do our votes really mean anything with Dark Money, SuperPACs, And The Forbes 400?
10.2K
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.)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 22
State elections, yes. National, no. The electoral college is more relevant then, and they are not legally obligated to adhere to the popular vote. They are beholden only to the check signers...
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SFC Michael Hasbun legally they are not bound to follow the popular vote. Morally they are obligated to vote according to the voters in their state. I would not mind seeing the electoral college being divided based on actual percentages. A person gets ten percent of the vote, they automatically get 10% of the states electoral votes.
I wonder how long the legal battle would last if a person sent to the electoral college voted against the popular vote. You know as well as I do that it would become a huge legal battle. A legal battle that would need to be resolved most expeditiously as the result would have a huge impact on the entire world.
I wonder how long the legal battle would last if a person sent to the electoral college voted against the popular vote. You know as well as I do that it would become a huge legal battle. A legal battle that would need to be resolved most expeditiously as the result would have a huge impact on the entire world.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
PO3 Steven Sherrill - Already happened with Bush Jr. Lost the popular vote, electoral college decided it was irrelevant. So far as I know, no heads rolled....
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Of course mean everything. There is enough "crazy" Tea party house member and senator now due to just vote alone. Do you think the established GOP what them in their rank? The thought they can use money to drown them in the primary ... but it turn out they failed big time. Then they thought they can corrupt them, and noticeable Tea Party representatives did "changed", but there is still enough remain. That is why the in fighting in GOP for such a long time. Our vote do matter.
(1)
(1)
SGT David Emme
That is a common misperception. There are three types of governments-authoritarian or autocracy, totalitarian-usually a dictatorship, and a democracy. Do we have a democracy? Direct rule by the people? No. do we have a democratic form of government? Yes. We have a democracy or which one would you classify our form of government-Authoritarian? Totalitarian? Democracy?
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
PO1 Kerry French - I don't understand the down vote ... anyway, Tea Party did face the attempt to take over by the established GOP, and that is FACT. In many cases GOP did able to change a few of them, and that is FACT too.
I am a TEA PARTY SUPPORTER! I follow the the Tea Party since the first rally. The thing about Tea Party is not about WHO you know, it is about what you believe and did you act on those belief.
The best example is Marco Rubio! He WAS a Tea Party candidate, and then he is not. That is how the GOP establishment do. They will ignore first, follow with call them crazy, then attack, if all else fail, they will attempt to take over through corruption and deals.
I am a TEA PARTY SUPPORTER! I follow the the Tea Party since the first rally. The thing about Tea Party is not about WHO you know, it is about what you believe and did you act on those belief.
The best example is Marco Rubio! He WAS a Tea Party candidate, and then he is not. That is how the GOP establishment do. They will ignore first, follow with call them crazy, then attack, if all else fail, they will attempt to take over through corruption and deals.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next