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.)
Voting
Election 2016
Elections
Wealth
Politics
Edited >1 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 22
1
1
0
one tree in a group of trees can make the group be seen as a forest..................
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If they went by popular vote only, not the idiots at the electoral college, things would probably be the way their suppose to be. The electoral college must be paid off for their votes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Colonel, I chosse to believe that our votes do matter. My concern is the PsyOps propaganda and social manipulation of our brethren and sister citizens. I recently posted a recall recommendation on a compilation of issues entitled, The Case Against the Global Economy - And for a Return to the Local, edited by Mander and Goldsmith. The book speaks resoundingly to the issues of today. Yet, it was published in 1996. Well worth a trip to the library to find and check out.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
MCPO David Louden Very interesting - thanks for the book title and recommendation - you may very well be on to something there!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs At this point, "no". Political posturing and pre-selected candidates, makes on wonder.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Basic Forms of Government - The Political Spectrum
From far left to far right and in between.. basic forms of government.
This question mixes two separate questions.
First of all, everyone needs to understand that we are NOT a “democracy”. We are a republic. In Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution, we are guaranteed a republican form of government. If you do not know the difference, here is a great video explaining it: https://youtu.be/klm6yZxDmJc
Secondly, does our vote count? That depends on how you define it. If you want your vote to count as to who the nominee of each party is then you have to understand the caucus system. Delegates are elected by the people who show up to their respective caucus in each precinct of each district in each state.
In my state, the Democrats are going with a straight caucus system so if you don’t go to the Democrat caucus, you will not have the opportunity to vote for a delegate or be one yourself. The Republicans are doing a hybrid system of delegates being awarded to a candidate based on the primary results. A candidate must get over 20% to get any delegates. If a candidate gets over 50% in a Congressional district then the candidate will get all of the delegates. If no one gets over 50% in the primary then the delegates are awarded proportionately, 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place. We also have some automatic delegates, our state party chair, the state committeeman and committeewoman. The remaining delegates are chosen by the other delegates who go to the state convention.
THESE are the people who will pick the nominee! Then on to the general election… You will be voting for a party’s electoral delegates – NOT the candidate themselves. The electors are usually party officials or very loyal party people. It has been this way from the beginning. Go look up Article 2, Section 1. George Washington knew that political parties would be a horrible idea and I agree with him, however, that is basically the system we have. Oh there are tons of other parties… but take a look at what percentage they get and you will see that they have no real chance of getting elected.
Now – the question of money… The Federal Election Commission has very strict rules about how much anyone can give to a candidate. The maximum that any person or Political Action Committee (PAC) can give in a federal election is $5400 per person or PAC. So a married couple or PAC can give a total of $10,800. If they own a business or a trust, then they could give another $5400 but that is it.
When you are talking about SuperPACs giving millions – you do not understand independent expenditures. IE’s are expenditures that are done WITHOUT any coordination between them and the candidate (it is against the law) and the SuperPAC can spend unlimited amounts on advertising or phone banking or doorbelling that the candidate cannot knowingly participate in. This is where the unions have been so successful and that is why they are super pissed that Citizen’s United was ruled favorably and why they have been fighting it and demonizing it. It now levels the playing field.
Having said all that, the only entity that can give an unlimited amount directly to the candidate is the party of the candidate. Donors can give as much as they want and the respective party can give as much as they want to the candidate.
I strongly believe that every veteran here complaining about the election system is probably not involved in anyway other than complaining. Have you doorbelled for a candidate? Have you made phone calls for your candidate? Have you given even $10 to your candidate? Only 7% of Americans give and even less volunteer. If you want to make the system better I challenge all of you who are here complaining, get involved with your local party and make it better. Make the veteran voice HEARD!!
I am a Legislative District Chair and while I am not a huge fan of the party system, it is what it is and we have to get involved to KEEP OUR REPUBLIC!
First of all, everyone needs to understand that we are NOT a “democracy”. We are a republic. In Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution, we are guaranteed a republican form of government. If you do not know the difference, here is a great video explaining it: https://youtu.be/klm6yZxDmJc
Secondly, does our vote count? That depends on how you define it. If you want your vote to count as to who the nominee of each party is then you have to understand the caucus system. Delegates are elected by the people who show up to their respective caucus in each precinct of each district in each state.
In my state, the Democrats are going with a straight caucus system so if you don’t go to the Democrat caucus, you will not have the opportunity to vote for a delegate or be one yourself. The Republicans are doing a hybrid system of delegates being awarded to a candidate based on the primary results. A candidate must get over 20% to get any delegates. If a candidate gets over 50% in a Congressional district then the candidate will get all of the delegates. If no one gets over 50% in the primary then the delegates are awarded proportionately, 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place. We also have some automatic delegates, our state party chair, the state committeeman and committeewoman. The remaining delegates are chosen by the other delegates who go to the state convention.
THESE are the people who will pick the nominee! Then on to the general election… You will be voting for a party’s electoral delegates – NOT the candidate themselves. The electors are usually party officials or very loyal party people. It has been this way from the beginning. Go look up Article 2, Section 1. George Washington knew that political parties would be a horrible idea and I agree with him, however, that is basically the system we have. Oh there are tons of other parties… but take a look at what percentage they get and you will see that they have no real chance of getting elected.
Now – the question of money… The Federal Election Commission has very strict rules about how much anyone can give to a candidate. The maximum that any person or Political Action Committee (PAC) can give in a federal election is $5400 per person or PAC. So a married couple or PAC can give a total of $10,800. If they own a business or a trust, then they could give another $5400 but that is it.
When you are talking about SuperPACs giving millions – you do not understand independent expenditures. IE’s are expenditures that are done WITHOUT any coordination between them and the candidate (it is against the law) and the SuperPAC can spend unlimited amounts on advertising or phone banking or doorbelling that the candidate cannot knowingly participate in. This is where the unions have been so successful and that is why they are super pissed that Citizen’s United was ruled favorably and why they have been fighting it and demonizing it. It now levels the playing field.
Having said all that, the only entity that can give an unlimited amount directly to the candidate is the party of the candidate. Donors can give as much as they want and the respective party can give as much as they want to the candidate.
I strongly believe that every veteran here complaining about the election system is probably not involved in anyway other than complaining. Have you doorbelled for a candidate? Have you made phone calls for your candidate? Have you given even $10 to your candidate? Only 7% of Americans give and even less volunteer. If you want to make the system better I challenge all of you who are here complaining, get involved with your local party and make it better. Make the veteran voice HEARD!!
I am a Legislative District Chair and while I am not a huge fan of the party system, it is what it is and we have to get involved to KEEP OUR REPUBLIC!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Our democracy has been bought and paid for. We no longer have a Democracy but a Plutocracy which will eventually turn into an Oligarchy. If ever a time to exercise one of our few freedoms to vote it is now! It is a sad day when our country started with the words “We the people” when the people became corporations and not actual people. Often times we do not understand a corporation is a legal entity created between government and a business in order to conduct business not subject to the same laws ordinary citizens are subjected to! If you think about it, the positions our politicians take are the positions the billionaire class takes. They are no longer politicians but agents of the rich! If you think the rich love America, they love America as far as they can squeeze a buck from us, we the people. Money is the root of all evil! Corporations and the billionaire class have become the carpetbaggers who preyed on the south after the civil war except it is our entire country they are preying upon. America-the greatest democracy money can buy!
(1)
(0)
SGT David Emme
That is a common misconception. 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?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I never completely understood "electoral vote" you can have way more votes through out each state, but the person with the most electoral vote wins. Seriously doesn't make sense to me....Maybe way back when ....when our country was young....we didn't have as many states this system was implemented and it made sense...but now?!?! I think our voting system should be changed...and it should be the one with the MOST VOTES WINS!
Also, I have always felt that the ENORMOUS COST of running for office is ridiculous. With what is spent by each candidate could put a dent in paying down our deficit...or go towards helping the needy...the poor...the sick.....but NOOOOOOO it goes to TV ads, traveling/hotel/food/ bumper stickers etc.... SUCH A WASTE of MONEY....
Ok...so I got a little off track. LOL No, I do not feel my vote counts as long as the one with the most electoral votes wins.
Also, I have always felt that the ENORMOUS COST of running for office is ridiculous. With what is spent by each candidate could put a dent in paying down our deficit...or go towards helping the needy...the poor...the sick.....but NOOOOOOO it goes to TV ads, traveling/hotel/food/ bumper stickers etc.... SUCH A WASTE of MONEY....
Ok...so I got a little off track. LOL No, I do not feel my vote counts as long as the one with the most electoral votes wins.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Kelli Mays - Sergeant; The way that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Electoral College to function was for "representatives of the right people" to meet and decide without reference to party politics and based solely on qualifications.
It doesn't work that way today - and hasn't for well over 200 years.
It doesn't work that way today - and hasn't for well over 200 years.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Kelli Mays - Sergeant; As "originally intended" you weren't supposed to have a vote at all.
The way that the political situation functions today, HALF of what the Founding Fathers "originally intended" is in effect - "the right people" are in charge of selecting the leaders in the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and the Senate. (In fact "the right people" are almost totally in charge of selecting the leaders in the House of Representatives.
The half of what the Founding Fathers "originally intended" that is NOT in effect is the half where the leaders would be acting in the best interests of the country as a whole without regard to partisan political advantage.
The way that the political situation functions today, HALF of what the Founding Fathers "originally intended" is in effect - "the right people" are in charge of selecting the leaders in the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and the Senate. (In fact "the right people" are almost totally in charge of selecting the leaders in the House of Representatives.
The half of what the Founding Fathers "originally intended" that is NOT in effect is the half where the leaders would be acting in the best interests of the country as a whole without regard to partisan political advantage.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
They do matter, but they are swayed by all of the things you are mentioning. The votes still matter, they can just be bought...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google