Big-Money Arms Race: The 2016 Elections
Candidates’ campaign funds are hauling in big bucks, while super PACs come to their aid with bottomless pockets. The 2016 presidential race will be the most expensive in history. Today, we set out to answer the question:
Who’s winning the money arms race for the 2016 presidential election?
First, there’s the candidates’ actual, official campaign funds:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has raised $47.5 million, Bernie Sanders comes in next with $15.2 million, followed by Ted Cruz at $14.3 million, and Bush places 4th at $11.4 million.
Now, that’s just the candidates’ campaign funds.
There’s a mega-funding superpower at play in America’s 2016 elections: super PACs.
Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. They’re supposed to remain separate from the candidates’ campaigns… but they don’t.
In super PAC superpower, Jeb Bush reigns supreme—his affiliated super PAC, Right to Rise, has hauled in $103 million. The super PACs backing Ted Cruz has raised $38 million, followed by Mark Rubio with $31.9, and Hillary at $15.6. Bernie Sanders does not have a super PAC, and neither does self-financed candidate Donald Trump, who’s relying on his personal fortune to fund his bid.
America understands that massive sums of money foster corruption. That’s why campaign contributions are limited to $2,700 per donor and $5,000 per political action committee. But donations to super Pacs are limited to… well, they’re not.
Unlimited amounts of money are flooding our elections from wealthy individuals, unions, and corporations via super PACS.
Donations of a million dollars or more account for about one-third of the money raised for the 2016 election cycle.
Next time you hear that Democrats are the heroes of getting money out of politics, consider this: Hilary Clinton’s affiliated super PAC, Priorities USA Action, collected almost half of its funds from just 7 donations of a million dollars or more.
Just a single check from a billionaire to a super PAC can dwarf hundreds of thousands of campaign contributions from everyday Americans.
The candidates’ presidential campaigns have raised about half as much as their PACs and super PACs. Super PACs have hauled in 17X as much money as they did last election—when “super PAC” hadn’t even made it into the dictionary yet.
And they’ve become a huge problem.
Problem #1: Candidates are finding all sorts of loopholes to get around the rules preventing campaign/super PAC coordination.
Super PACs are supposed to be completely independent from candidates’ campaigns, because the temptation presented by multi-million dollar checks creates an enormous risk for corruption. But as it turns out, candidates haven’t been shy about finding creative ways to bend the rules.
For example, Bush skirted laws against candidates raising money for their own super PAC by delaying announcing his candidacy until the last possible moment, while running around raising as much money as possible for his super PAC.
90% of the big money in Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC was hauled in before he officially declared, making possible his record-setting haul of $103 million in just 6 months.
Problem #2: Super PACs are acting like shadow-arms of the candidates’ official campaigns.
Super PACs have taken on a lot of the work traditionally accomplished by campaign funds—like fundraising, phone banking, political ads, and direct mailings.
“Super PACs will spend as campaigns do, investing in polling and data sets, hiring employees in key states and buying pricey television and digital advertising, direct mailings and phone calls to voters.”
Today, super PACs can and do:
- Buy and produce political ads
- Run smear campaigns against opposing candidates
- Host massive fundraisers
- Organize canvassing, phone banking, and data gathering
“Never before have super PACs played such a prominent role in a presidential contest — especially so early in the process. Now, nearly every major candidate has a super PAC doppelganger.”
But, you ask, how would we finance elections without super PACs? Um, the way we used to—citizens contributing to support the campaign fund of the candidate of their choice.
Bernie Sanders has the highest percentage of small-donors, with 80.7% of his campaign funds coming from contributions of $200 or less. Ben Carson is a close second at $80.2%.
[GRAPHIC: news headline tear-out:
“Just 60 donors gave one-third of all money raised so far for 2016”~source]
So before you go to the polls, ask yourself:
Who’s giving your candidate-of-choice big bucks—and what do their donors expect in return?
If your candidate is financed by a few millionaires, once they’re in office, do you really think they’re going to represent you—or the special interests and wealthy few they’re indebted to?
“Before this, two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody—when they call I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”
This level of corruption is outrageous—help us spread the word.
We’re already building a movement to pass Anti-Corruption Acts at the local, state, and federal level to make this kind of behavior illegal (the way it should be). However, we can’t do that unless we educate millions of Americans on our nation’s corruption problem—and the plan to fix it. Please, help us spread the word: