Who's paying for the 2016 presidential campaign? So far, America’s 1 percenters

The presidential race is being funded by its smallest-ever pool of wealthy donors – most of them clustered by the GOP.

|
Andrew Harnik/AP/File
Ready for Hillary apparel and accessories being packed up at the Ready for Hillary super PAC store in Arlington, Va. in April. Democrats running for president's super PAC filings account for less than 9 percent of the total super PAC haul so far, according to an Associated Press analysis that compared money raised by formal presidential campaigns with what the super PACs say they plan to report having raised on Friday.

The race for 2016 is being funded, so far, by its smallest-ever concentration of donors, with less than 400 families responsible for raising half the money so far, reported The New York Times on Saturday.

Of the $388 million raised for presidential campaigns, the majority is being streamed to super PACs – external groups that, for five years now, have not been limited in the amount of contributions they can accept from individual donors. Nearly all of the candidates have been encouraging their donors to give to these committees, according to The Associated Press.

Donations to individual candidates cannot exceed $2,700 but super PACs can receive unlimited amounts. 

The numbers were revealed as many super PACs were required to file their first federal fund-raising reports by midnight Friday.

The New York Times, which said it examined Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records, reported:

Analysis … shows that the fund-raising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. The concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side, according to the Times analysis, where consultants and lawyers have pushed more aggressively to exploit the looser fund-raising rules that have fueled the rise of super PACs.

Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs.

Democrats account for less than 9 percent of the total super PAC haul so far, according to the AP. Priorities USA Action, the biggest group behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has raised $15.6 million in total, lifted by a $2 million donation from entertainment executive Haim Saban and $1 million from hedge fund investor George Soros. 

In contrast, the single largest contribution to any of the candidate-specific super PACs has been $10 million from Texas energy investor Toby Neugebauer to the organization backing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, reported the AP. His formal campaign took three months to raise as much money.

Two other prominent donors are almost singlehandedly propping up super PACs for former governor of Texas, Rick Perry. The groups, named Opportunity and Freedom and Opportunity and Freedom I, have raised a total of $12.8 million, $11 million of which have come from Dallas billionaires Darwin Deason and Kelcy L. Warren, according to Politico.

Also from Dallas is Chart Westcott, an investor who told the Times he contributed $200,000 to Unintimidated PAC, a group supporting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign.

Mr. Westcott said his decision was motivated by “a love of economic freedom. That’s the biggest drive for most donors – more prosperity for the country as a whole, as well as for themselves.”

Since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2010 held that the restriction of independent political expenditures by nonprofit organizations was constitutionally prohibited, the number of super PACs has ballooned. “The heart of Citizens United is the notion that super PACs, and other outside groups, are completely independent of candidates,” reported NPR’s Peter Overby. “That underpins the Court's conclusion that unregulated money from big donors wouldn't be corrupting to lawmakers.”

But these super PACs are anything but independent, instead “acting as shadow campaigns” for presidential candidates, writes the Times. According to the report, so far some of the money has been going to “chartered planes, luxury hotel suites, opposition research, high-priced lawyers and more.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Who's paying for the 2016 presidential campaign? So far, America’s 1 percenters
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0801/Who-s-paying-for-the-2016-presidential-campaign-So-far-America-s-1-percenters
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe