Jason Reed / Reuters
Sheldon Adelson in Jerusalem, July 29, 2012.
Fifty-seven percent of all super PAC donations in this election has come from a small circle of just 47 donors, says a new report by Demos. Those are the donors who have given over $1 million each; those who have given over $10,000 account for 94 percent of all Super PAC fundraising.
"[O]ur research shows that outside spending groups that aggregate unlimited contributions are distorting our democracy, functioning as megaphones for (sometimes unseen) millionaires and moguls," the report says. The authors, Adam Lioz and Blair Bowie, recommend a Constitutional amendment to allow limits on campaign contributions, among other proposed remedies.
One of the report's more surprising findings concerns "dark money," or super PAC contributions from unknown sources: as it turns out, only 2.8 percent of all super PAC fundraising came from undisclosed sources. 7.6 percent of all outside campaign donations—including to super PACs, 527s and other non-profits—was dark.
This might lend credence to the "iceberg theory" of campaign spending (discussed by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig last week on The Rachel Maddow Show) which says that campaign spending's potency mostly comes from the implied threat that future spending could be diverted to an opposing candidate's campaign. Under this theory, major super PAC donors have an incentive to disclose their names because that lets politicians to know which big spenders they need to appease in order to receive future donations.
Casino mogul and prominent Republican donor Sheldon Adelson was found, along with his wife Miriam, to have donated a cumulative $34.2 million, or 11 percent of all super PAC donations, this cycle. Said the report, "It would take more than 321,000 average American families donating an equivalent share of their wealth to match the Adelsons’ giving."
Leave a Comment:
The SCOTUS truely did throw our democratic process to the whims of ultra egos and even global profitering interests. How many voters will reach the conclusion that freedom isn't worth the hastle, and, let the corporations have it - we can't match their price, anyway. A disasterous conclusion which is the easiest choice to make. No one ever said that being responsible for maintaining a democracy was easy - we need to constantly fight to keep our freedoms, and the never ending process to progress.
And which party is predominantly being so funded? Take a guess.
Bottomline up front: We need to adopt Nancy Pelosi's idea of public financing for all elections. We need to amend the constitution to overturn the horrible Citizen's United ruling that has been a disaster for our country's democracy. Our elections have become nothing more than an auction sold to the highest special interest bidder. America is no longer a democratic country. Today, we are a plutocracy, run by/for/of the corporate oligarchs who have decided they want to do whatever they hell they want to with our country. We can fight back but it will take years to undue the damage done by what many legal scholars call the most dreadful and abysmal Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case under the Taney court prior to the Civil War.
If all candidates in an election start with the same amount of money, we the people will have a chance to compare their money management skills before the vote! Either public financing or all donations to be split equally between the candidates.
The simple solution is you limit the incumbents to the salary of the office they hold. The run away costs are because of the congress paying anything to keep their job. You stop them you solve the problem.
That they would have to run on their record instead of buying a false campaign add will do wonders to getting things done as a benefit.
Anyone not in public office can spend anything they like.
Completely legal, you don't have to take the job.
He could have done so much good with that money he's throwing down the toilet.
When will people wake up, rebel and massively put real grass roots people into their federal and state governments???
What I found most shocking is the supreme court opened the door to let anyone or entitiy literally buy any or all offices in our country. With ever branch of government controlled by less than 100 people, when will the citizenry realized they are getting fleeced and its going into the pockets of the few and will eventually bankrupt our government and topple our financial system?
OMG! Can you just hear the uproar if romney looses and claims the deductions for expenses to find a job.
Anne-4404670: And how much did obama spend of our money to buy congress?
How are we to compete with someone who can PRINT money.
Maybe you should stop voting for people who can be bought.
Even smart business men make mistakes!!!