Who are the 168 families who will decide America's future?

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:23:01 -0400

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&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Oct 12 at 2015 1:23 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:23:43 -0400

I don't know...but I hope they do something soon.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 12 at 2015 1:33 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:33:51 -0400

This is insane. Seems they want to buy the election

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 12 at 2015 2:03 PM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:03:15 -0400

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.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 2:47 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:47:34 -0400

It is their money, let them spend it the way they want. lol unless they are funded by government .... that is a different issue. lol

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 12 at 2015 2:49 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:49:05 -0400

Interesting. I guess class warfare helps sell newspapers. I can think of actual stories of actual interest about those actually subverting our electoral process that I would much rather see them expose. How about groups represented by armed thugs posted outside polling places, groups that the Department of Justice shields? How about unions demanding dues from all members that they then contribute to political campaigns that many of their membership abhor? How about organizations subsisting on federal grants a large portion of which are funneled back to candidates who will then vote for more grants? How about these?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 12 at 2015 5:27 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:27:51 -0400

Of course, let's not forget that 14 if the top 25 campaign contributors are labor unions..... Don't they represent those non millionaires/ billionaires? Odd they're not mentioned in the post.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 13 at 2015 12:07 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:07:48 -0400

The Bilderberg Group has been around since 1954. Is there any solid evidence that they have done anything good or bad?

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Oct 13 at 2015 8:35 PM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:35:14 -0400

Abolished the EPA, Education, IRS, and many other government agency to appease the rich so they can get richer...seems like a legit reason. The poor will still vote for the Republican even though a tax cut is not going to make a significant difference in their income when we are talking a few hundred dollars a year when compared to thousands and millions a rich person would received. Then again, to entice the poor to vote for the Republican so they can work for the rich...take a stance on 2nd Amendment, Pro-Life, and repeat lies until it's basically accepted by the mass.

This is how my father-in-law who's on social security vote...he vote for the Republican because he's very religious and the Republican gives him a sense that it's the party of god since so many evangelical support the GOP. The only amusing thing about this is that he's the one who's going to suffer when his SSI is cut as his food stamp has already been cut. Yet he blamed the Democrat, because he's too ignorant to believe that a party of god for god would do such a thing to the poor people.