In other words, these millions of dollars are coming from a handful of powerful individuals, most with an agenda of their own.
An often stated refrain regarding Donald Trump's popularity thus far in the early election cycle is that Trump is doing so well in the polls because he is not beholden to any kingmakers for cash. Trump, as did Ross Perot and Mike Bloomberg before him, is using his own money, so doesn't need direct fund raising. Here is a recent quote from Trump on his fellow candidates going to a Republican retreat sponsored by the Koch brothers:
I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers.Perhaps they weren't begging, but voters want to know what these candidates are offering in return for these huge piles of cash.
Voters are frustrated that candidates are so frozen when speaking and just dribbling back talking points, that they don't really state what they feel. Instead, they are simply being cautious to ensure they don't offend any of these big donors. Trump has successfully tapped into this issue, speaking off the cuff and telling people what he thinks - whether they like it or not. Bottom line, at least so far, its working.
The Trump impact I believe is best summed by columnist David Brooks:
The times are perfect for Donald Trump. He’s an outsider, which appeals to the alienated. He’s confrontational, which appeals to the frustrated. And, in a unique 21st-century wrinkle, he’s a narcissist who thinks he can solve every problem, which appeals to people who in challenging times don’t feel confident in their understanding of their surroundings and who crave leaders who seem to be.
Why are the non Trump candidates working so hard to say so little? Because they need the money, and this big money is coming from fewer and fewer.
The NY Times recently ran an article listing 65 individuals who have already given over $1 million to candidates, a year and a half before the election! This list ranges from Wall Street Executives, to casino owners to film directors. Some names are recognizable, some are not.
At this writing, almost half of the money raised so far in the Presidential campaign has been contributed by less than 400 individuals and families. This top heavy cash grab is without precedent, and all due to the rise of Super PAC's as I have written about in prior posts.
Most candidates simply don't have the wallet to finance their own campaigns, and with the Super PAC's laws as they are, make it irresistible to chase these limited donors. Why attempt to raise $50K from 20 different potential donors, when you can chase $1 million from a single potential donor.
Simply put, the speed in which these Super PAC's can raise money has allowed candidates to raise enormous campaign war chests in a fraction of the time that it would take candidate to raise similar amounts directly.
As with everything that involves politics and money, there is a potential cost. As noted above, these small wealthy donors have made today's candidates deeply dependent on this small pool of the richest Americans. While the concentration of donors is greater on the Republican side, this issues cuts across party lines.
As an examples, 130 donors provided more than half of the money raised by Republican candidates via the Super PACs. Instead of these campaigns listening to hundreds of people's questions/issues while fund raising, they now only need to address dozens. Not to pick on Scott Walker from the GOP, but of the $20 million or so raised by Mr. Walker to date, at least $13.5 million (68%) came from just four donors. From the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton brought in $15 Million, with nine donors giving at least $1 Million.
Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, which favors limits on political money had this to say about the recent Super PAC figures:
The 2016 presidential candidates and their individual candidate super PAC's are wiping out the nation's anti corruption candidate contribution limits.Unless we have some limits, or rolling back of these Super PAC's, only the super wealthy will have a say in fund raising and politicians ears. No longer can a candidate rely on grass roots support; they are all feeding from the same trough.
