Higher turnout has the possibility of weakening the donor class’s grip on policy. It could also reduce the influence of the extreme right wing on politics. It’s not surprising that the GOP, which benefits from a low-turnout, strong-donor environment, supports voting laws that tend to reduce turnout.
What would America look like if donors didn’t rule the world? It’s an interesting question and one worth pondering as the 2016 Presidential campaigns kick off. Available data reveals that donors not only have disproportionate influence over politics, but that influence is wielded largely to keep issues that would benefit the working and middle classes off of the table.
Connecticut is poised to undo a signature accomplishment—the Citizens Election Program. Facing budget cuts, some legislators in Connecticut have proposed allowing wealthy donors to, once again, dominate the state’s elections.
Our city governments make decisions that affect us most, yet we know very little about the ways that money influences them. In a previous post I explored new evidence that people of color are not well represented by their councils. One possible reason is the overwhelmingly white municipal donor classes.
Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a pivotal case on union rights inFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association. If they decide on behalf of the plaintiffs, the justices would overturn a 1977 Supreme Court decision allowing public sector unions to collect fair share fees from all employees to help pay for the costs associated with collective bargaining.
McCutcheon struck down the limit on the total amount that one wealthy donor is permitted to contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) combined.
Judge Neil Gorsuch is no champion for democracy, and his record on money in politics suggests he would continue the Court’s trajectory of expanding the power of the donor class.
Until voters and elected leaders in Baltimore, Maryland took action to bring small donor public financing to their elections, big money in politics was a growing problem in the city.
Chiraag Bains, Director of Legal Strategies for Demos
“Do you believe that the Constitution requires that we allow corporations and wealthy individuals the unfettered ability to translate their economic might into political power through campaign contributions and expenditures—even if it drowns out the voices of working-class Americans and erects barriers to candidates of color who lack access to big money and the mostly white donor class?”
By empowering people who would not otherwise be among an elite Seattle donor class, the Democracy Voucher program fosters the political agency of the people of Seattle.
[...] Judge Gorsuch’s approach “has created a system in which single individuals and corporations can spend tens of millions of dollars to influence elections, and in which candidates and elected officials are significantly more responsive to the priorities of an elite donor class than to Americans on the whole,” the CLC said.76 A recent report from Demos found that the ove
New York, NY – Today, Heather McGhee, President of Demos, issued the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate passed the GOP Tax Scam:
“Today, Congressional Republicans proved once again that they will stop at nothing to enrich the millionaire, billionaire and corporate donors to whom they are beholden—despite the severe cost that will now be paid by working- and middle-class families.
It's no secret that when the wealthy speak, the powerful listen. What else would you expect when the average cost of winning a House seat has soared by 344 percent since 1986? But the other side of this coin tends to get less attention: How do the powerful respond to the voices of ordinary people -- those who aren't part of the "donor class?"
A new Explainer from Dēmos looks at why Washington focuses so heavily on deficit reduction and not on job creation, even as unemployment rates remain high. In short: the affluent donor class and big business interests prioritize deficit reduction and Congress, in turn, prioritizes what they prioritize. As detailed in the Explainer, if deficit reduction was really the priority, Congress would increase spending and invest in job creating projects, like infrastructure upkeep.
However, money still matters a lot, and it probably matters more on the local and state level than it does nationally. As McElwee notes, the donor class has sharply different ideological beliefs than the public at large. For obvious reasons, they tend to resist the tax increases necessary to pay for better services, and tend to support "centrist" austerity derp like the Bowles-Simpson program. In other words, they're more conservative.
About 94% of donors to Emanuel's campaign were white, even though white people comprise just 39% of Chicago's total population, according to the new report, from progressive think tank Demos. Emanuel's donors almost entirely (84%) gave large contributions of $1,000 or more. A staggering 80% of his donors had an annual income of at least $100,000 or more, despite just 15% of Chicagoans making six figures.
A new report from the Sunlight Foundation shows that post-Citizens United we are entering an era where political spending is dominated not by the 1 percent but by the top 1 percent of the 1 percent. In 2012, just 31,385 people contributed $1.68 billion in the election cycle. The median donation from the donor group was $26,574, which is more than half the median family income today.
Aside from the personal costs of running for office, and the structural problems stemming from the way we elect representatives, money is a major issue when it comes to the representation of people of color. While personal resources play a role in the decision to pursue elective office, it also takes money, sometimes a lot of money, to run for office.
