Your Response was posted! Click here to see it.
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)
5
5
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs Votes don't mean anything anyway, with the Electoral College. But the things you list make it worse.
(5)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
You need to read the constitutuion. Our founders put the electoral college in our constitution for a reason. Without it, smaller, less populous states would have NO voice in governent. Read: Enlightened Democracy; The Case for the Electoral College" by Tara Ross.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
PO1 Kerry French - Nothing you've said changes the fact that the electoral college is not required to cast their votes as the population wishes. The voice that those less populous states have can quite easily (and frequently does) say something other than what the voters want.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
It actually is. You haven't read the constitution yet, have you? It is required by the Constitution. Article 2 Section 1.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Electors rarely stray from voting for the winner of the populist election. Only 2 states have a proportional electoral vote. The other 48 are winner take all.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
Capt Seid Waddell Good question and what did he do with all the money left over? Does anyone know what happens to all the money that is donated to a candidate once he drops out if he still has a balance? Does he keep in the "war chest" for a nother run at in 2020?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, I believe that the "money controls elections" rubric is simply a tactic the left uses to explain why they were rejected by the voters. My vote is not for sale nor are the votes of those I know.
Once the candidate has enough money to get their message out, money becomes meaningless. Ross Perot was unable to buy the election; neither were Mitt Romney or Carly Fiorina able to buy theirs. In the end, it is the voters that make the choices.
I believe that money left over after the campaign is in the candidate's war chest to be used for future campaigns or to be donated to the campaigns of others - but it must be used in campaign related expenses. I could be wrong.
Once the candidate has enough money to get their message out, money becomes meaningless. Ross Perot was unable to buy the election; neither were Mitt Romney or Carly Fiorina able to buy theirs. In the end, it is the voters that make the choices.
I believe that money left over after the campaign is in the candidate's war chest to be used for future campaigns or to be donated to the campaigns of others - but it must be used in campaign related expenses. I could be wrong.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT Anthony Richmond, agreed. Going digital makes it impossible for the average person to detect voter fraud and puts that power in the hands of a few computer programmers - who can put their fingers on the scale and nobody will ever know about it. When the votes were on paper anyone could see if the votes did not add up right.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
SGT Anthony Richmond - So disgusting... ALL absentee ballots - especially from military should be counted no matter when they come in.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
Perhaps someone who is much smarter than I am can explain how that is even legal?
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Perhaps someone who is much smarter than I am can explain how that is even legal?
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
The purpose of this guide is to encourage citizens, like yourself, to take an active part in the Federal election process. There are several ways you may support Federal candidates and political committees involved in Federal elections. These activities, however, are subject to the Federal campaign finance law. For example, the law limits the amount of money you may contribute and prohibits certain people and organizations from making...
(3)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
People here obviously have NOT participated in the process or they would know there IS a limit on giving - $5400 per person INCLUDING PACS. Also, PACs can take in money and spend it on Independent Expenditures. That is unlimited. So they can hire door bellers, phone callers and millions in advertising on TV and radio. They CANNOT coordinate with the candidate - that is illegal. The only entity that can give unlimited amounts of money directly to candidates is the party.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Our votes do matter.. Have we forgotten what happened in Florida with the "hanging chads"?
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SFC Joseph McCausland I moved down here after the hanging chad debacle. In fact it was two years after that mess. When I moved down here it was still a sore subject. Dems and Repubs alike agreed on one thing. They made the state of Florida look like a collection of retards fucking a football.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Until they change the electoral laws so that the person who raises the most money gets elected the individual voters' votes will still count.
[LATE THOUGHT] - Maybe the solution would be to subtract the number of dollars spent from the votes received in order to determine the winner. Of course that would mean that most people would end up being elected with negative numbers, but what the heck that's no more ludicrous than some other electoral systems.
[LATE THOUGHT] - Maybe the solution would be to subtract the number of dollars spent from the votes received in order to determine the winner. Of course that would mean that most people would end up being elected with negative numbers, but what the heck that's no more ludicrous than some other electoral systems.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Wow, such a cynical conversation.
Do we really want to abandon the system that protects the small rurals areas from a large vote of the city? Has there been any elections won by the electoral college changing the vote of the state?
The system we have tends to assure that those wanting office can not ignore the rural areas and only pander to the cities.
Do we really want to abandon the system that protects the small rurals areas from a large vote of the city? Has there been any elections won by the electoral college changing the vote of the state?
The system we have tends to assure that those wanting office can not ignore the rural areas and only pander to the cities.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
Detroit was ruined by 60 years of Democrat policies. NOT the electoral college. LOL
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Some are blind. Detroit is under GOP control? And dirty tricks? The GOP was not the ones trying to negate the voter. It was the other party and also the other would not count the absentee ballots form the military. I love it when you want every vote to count bit only if it is for your group.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
PO1 Kerry French - Or how to do or not do anything else with your life. And they want tolerance of anything or anybody except those who disagree.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs the sad answer is no, our votes do not matter. There is too much big money. There is too much greed. There is too much pandering. There is not enough service. There is not enough caring about the American People. There is not enough reading of the U.S. Constitution.
I am a firm believer that we need to do away with the two party system. I am a firm believer that the amount of money that can legally be spent on a campaign be limited. I think that the money should come from private citizens, never a corporation or PAC. I think that it should be capped at $5,000 per registered voter, with a 100% tax penalty on every dollar above the $5,000. I believe that the amount raised through donation should be matched with public funds up to a cap of $1,000.000. I believe that media outlets should be able to donate on air time, and that time should be able to be tax deducted based on the cost of the time in advertising dollars. I believe that any attack add should require a bibliography detailing where the information upon which the add is being made is based. I think that attack adds should be taxed at 100% based on the cost of the time in advertising dollars. I don't want to hear why the other guy is an asshole. I know you think the other guy is an asshole, otherwise you wouldn't be opposing them. I want you to tell me what your good qualities are. I also think that anyone caught violating the election law should be required to register as such. They should have their right to vote, and to run for office stripped. That is just me though.
I am a firm believer that we need to do away with the two party system. I am a firm believer that the amount of money that can legally be spent on a campaign be limited. I think that the money should come from private citizens, never a corporation or PAC. I think that it should be capped at $5,000 per registered voter, with a 100% tax penalty on every dollar above the $5,000. I believe that the amount raised through donation should be matched with public funds up to a cap of $1,000.000. I believe that media outlets should be able to donate on air time, and that time should be able to be tax deducted based on the cost of the time in advertising dollars. I believe that any attack add should require a bibliography detailing where the information upon which the add is being made is based. I think that attack adds should be taxed at 100% based on the cost of the time in advertising dollars. I don't want to hear why the other guy is an asshole. I know you think the other guy is an asshole, otherwise you wouldn't be opposing them. I want you to tell me what your good qualities are. I also think that anyone caught violating the election law should be required to register as such. They should have their right to vote, and to run for office stripped. That is just me though.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Kerry French
The money IS limited and it IS taxed. LOL on the media donating their time! and NO way do I want tax money going to support elections.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO1 Kerry French - We already pay for the elections. I would rather see us pay for the campaign, and limit the bullshit, than see things continue as they are. By eliminating primaries, and having just one single election day for all ballot items, that would save taxpayers money in the long run. I do understand how you feel. I am just tired of the do nothing, business as usual government.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google