Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close
High Net Worth Households Drive 2018 Out-of-State Political Fundraising

High Net Worth Households Drive 2018 Out-of-State Political Fundraising

Read more on Windfall Data

Contributions

  • This data surprised me. I thought more of the fundraising surge was small donors, but seems like it’s not. Is this more about spin from the parties and candidates, or is this just a reaffirmation that politics is predominantly funded by high net worth folks?

  • You really don’t hear anyone complaining about Citizens United much anymore do you? It turns out money is nonpartisan.

    An interesting theory that I came across recently goes something like this: if money is speech (as Citizens United rules) and the Constitution establishes a freedom of speech, it follows

    You really don’t hear anyone complaining about Citizens United much anymore do you? It turns out money is nonpartisan.

    An interesting theory that I came across recently goes something like this: if money is speech (as Citizens United rules) and the Constitution establishes a freedom of speech, it follows that citizens should be guaranteed some money in order to actually possess that freedom.

    Maybe one day (but probably not) the left will embrace citizens united and turn it into something totally different than its current interpretation.

  • My guess is there's a lot of publicity for a few Dem candidates crushing it with small donations, like Beto. However the bulk of out of state donors are still the very wealthy.

    I don't see the average small donor getting excited to give to Donnelly. Wonder how many people outside of Indiana even know

    My guess is there's a lot of publicity for a few Dem candidates crushing it with small donations, like Beto. However the bulk of out of state donors are still the very wealthy.

    I don't see the average small donor getting excited to give to Donnelly. Wonder how many people outside of Indiana even know his name? And yet that race is probably more important and winnable than Beto.

  • It’s sad the public is so susceptible to advertising. When money translates into influence (votes) it skews democracy toward the wealthy. But that’s the way it’s always been and probably the way it will stay. It doesn’t surprise me the wealthy are the primary contributors. Who has extra income to devote

    It’s sad the public is so susceptible to advertising. When money translates into influence (votes) it skews democracy toward the wealthy. But that’s the way it’s always been and probably the way it will stay. It doesn’t surprise me the wealthy are the primary contributors. Who has extra income to devote to promoting some else’s public relations? I’m surprised ‘group funding’ hasn’t made more of a splash in this political climate by empowering smaller donors.

  • So you get what you can pay for. The rich get richer.

  • Since I don’t contribute any $ to political institutions or candidates, should I expect to get no benefits. Or, put in other words, I’ll be in the bottom bunch waiting for something to filter down? It may surprise you to find out that many don’t even consider city elections to be THAT! important

  • I follow Max Lockie’s posts here on NewsPicks. I find his comments to usually be insightful, logically sound, and well written. However, the logic of his post here asserting that the effects of the Citizens United decision are insignificant left me speechless. Well, almost speechless.

    Yes, it is true

    I follow Max Lockie’s posts here on NewsPicks. I find his comments to usually be insightful, logically sound, and well written. However, the logic of his post here asserting that the effects of the Citizens United decision are insignificant left me speechless. Well, almost speechless.

    Yes, it is true that money, corporate money in this case, doesn’t know nor care about the political party affiliation of people in or campaigning for elected office. This simple fact is presented in way that suggests that if politicians from both parties receive funds it must be relatively harmless.

    Just the opposite is true.

    It is the job of corporate officers to both jealousy protect and maximize the growth of the company’s and investors’ money. It’s simply good business to financially back the nominees from each party so that corporate- and investor-friendly legislation is passed with as little debate as possible. Sometimes with no debate at all. If a specific politician decides that they cannot in good conscience back these bills, the corporate campaign contributions simply shift to another person from the same party who will do what they’re told and the offending incumbent is “primaried”. Deep corporate pockets can, and do, end the political careers of true statesmen by throwing overwhelming sums of cash at their more loyal, same party opponent.

    Another tool at the disposal of corporate America is ALEC, a “think tank” that now actually writes a large percentage of our federal law. ALEC is staffed by people whose corporate mindsets are firmly entrenched. I would think it’s obvious that when corporate America has the power to impose its will in the form of federal law, said laws will be heavily weighted in favor of big business. I know that if I had the ability to make the rules, the chances that I could be beaten by anybody at all would be extremely remote.

    With these facts in mind, what are the chances that our government prioritizes the best interests of the citizenry, much less the least fortunate of its members?

    The true measure of a society lies in how well it treats its least fortunate.

  • I find it hard to believe that 90ish percent of the contributions are coming from households with a net worth of one-million or more. Basically, their analysis is saying that a couple percent of the people are making 90% of the contributions, numerically; but the contributions are slightly smaller than

    I find it hard to believe that 90ish percent of the contributions are coming from households with a net worth of one-million or more. Basically, their analysis is saying that a couple percent of the people are making 90% of the contributions, numerically; but the contributions are slightly smaller than average in size. Me thinks 90% they did something wrong.