- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest.
In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.
Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest.
Read more @: The new Gilded Age: Close to half of all super PAC money comes from 50 donors
Democracy being bought and sold by a small amount of oligarchs at the top.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I'll back you in this, TheDemSocialist.Read more @: The new Gilded Age: Close to half of all super PAC money comes from 50 donors
Democracy being bought and sold by a small amount of oligarchs at the top.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
And yet they seem to have failed horribly at that goal.
I find it interesting that the anti-super PAC rhetoric is coming in so strong during a primary process which has largely highlighted the ineffectiveness of throwing money at a campaign.
In the case of the GOP only because the person they have been trying to derail doesn't need their money...yet.
Read more @: The new Gilded Age: Close to half of all super PAC money comes from 50 donors
Democracy being bought and sold by a small amount of oligarchs at the top.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
They don't seem to have had much of an impact in 2012 either. Dems picked up seats in both houses of Congress and retained the presidency despite a big disadvantage in SuperPAC spending.
So far their effectiveness seems to be primarily in helping rich people piss away money.
I'm not defending the concept of a super PAC but I'd like to see some support for the argument that they're buying elections. And some clearer explanation of what that means.
The real indicator is how successful those special interests are in protecting their financial interests regardless of which party is dominant in Congress.
In the case of the GOP only because the person they have been trying to derail doesn't need their money...yet.
His initial success came partly from this very fact; that he was NOT a paid puppet with strings held by those puppeteers.
So people who have been annoyed at this growing problem over the decades are saw a chance to act, and rallied to his support.
Still, the money and efforts (through media control) spent by BOTH parties to derail that candidate are providing dividends all the same, in the character assassination so many people have been crowing about which will likely cost him the overall campaign.
If it's a real problem, and they are buying the elections, why are the politicians they are supporting not consistently getting elected?
I find it interesting that the anti-super PAC rhetoric is coming in so strong during a primary process which has largely highlighted the ineffectiveness of throwing money at a campaign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?