As we start to watch the money rolling into the Presidential Election of 2016 … the results are not encouraging except for the biggest-bucked of donors. (Emphasis mine):
'The 67 biggest donors, each of whom gave $1 million or more, donated more than three times as much as the 508,000 smallest donors combined, according to a POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.
The 67 mega-donors accounted for $128 million in cash to super PACs supporting specific 2016 presidential candidates. In all, POLITICO’s analysis found that 29 super PACS and other big-money non-profits dedicated to the candidates combined to raise $271 million from 9,500 donors, for an average donation of $29,000.
'On the ledger’s other side, the analysis found that donors who gave $200 or less to the candidates’ campaigns (and whose donations are estimated at $75 each) combined to donate $38 million to the campaigns of the 21 announced candidates.'
So whose interests are these campaigns going to most reflect? If money is speech, whose voices are drowning out the others?
And what, if anything, can be done about it?
67 donors and gusher of cash change 2016 race
The flood of seven-figure contributions to outside groups supporting presidential candidates — officially reported for the first time Friday — illustrates in stark terms how the unprecedented political buying power of wealthy donors has fundamentally shifted U.S. presidential campaigns. The 67 biggest donors, each of whom gave $1 million…
Thank you Citizens United! </sarcasm>