The ultra-wealthy are a hot topic in presidential politics. And nearly every candidate wants the backing of deep-pocketed super PACs and the vocal support of the very rich. The defection of a disillusioned billionaire is considered bad news for any candidate. But what’s the difference between all of these?
Just last week, Americans for Prosperity, part of billionaire businessman Charles Koch's political network, endorsed Republican candidate Nikki Haley. The endorsement was heralded as a major coup for the former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor, who is gaining support in opinion polls.
It is also considered news that billionaire Jamie Dimon, chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co., spoke to her on the phone and that Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, attended a small gathering for her. . Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin made headlines when he said he would support Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), only to drop his support mid-way and declare he was “still a bystander”. It once again attracted attention.
DeSantis is backed by a large super PAC called Never Back Down. He now has another newly formed super PAC created amid infighting among Never Back Down's leaders. His campaign has so far failed to meet donor expectations and has failed to break out of the group that many predicted at the beginning of the year would be the primary challenger to former President Donald Trump. do not have.
The goal for these wealthy Republicans is to find a candidate they trust and rally behind that candidate, avoiding a repeat of the 2016 primary in which Mr. Trump won against a divided faction. While that may be commendable, so far they have not been as successful in slowing Trump down as the Republican establishment was in 2016. Billionaires also influence Democratic presidential politics. Candidates have been courting them enthusiastically as they compete for the party's nomination in recent election campaigns. However, this dynamic on the left is less pronounced than in the Republican Party.
What all of this says about the nature of politics today is far more worrying. People, or voters, have a greater say in choosing presidential candidates than they did in decades past, but billionaires receive special treatment. The richest among us can influence who runs, who doesn't, who has the money to stay in the race, and who doesn't. No one planned this. Today's system is a coincidence of several seemingly unrelated changes.
The influence of the old bosses, including powerful governors, mayors, and other party leaders, began to decline more than half a century ago, and after the tumultuous 1968 Chicago convention, Democrats were given more power in choosing delegates to the national convention. The rules have been revised. , thus the final candidate is communicated to the voters.
Congress was also involved in this change. After Watergate, Congress enacted new campaign finance laws designed to limit both individual contributions and overall spending by candidates. A system of federal matching funds provided candidates with funds to match small contributions from a voluntary pool of taxpayer funds. It was built on trading. Candidates agreed to abide by spending limits in exchange for winning federal funds.
The system began to erode about 20 years ago as candidates who were capable of raising money well above spending limits left the system. This allowed them to spend money freely on nomination contests. Over time, the entire system collapsed, putting candidates unable to raise large sums of money through private donations at a disadvantage.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, along with subsequent relevant court decisions, changed the structure of campaign finance once again. One result is a new breed of entities called super PACs, typically backed by billionaires and billionaires, including “dark money” groups that do not report the names of their donors. will appear. Some of these committees operated independently. Others were designed to supplement the work of national party committees and individual presidential candidates, but with limited coordination. Now, super PACs supporting candidates are working more closely together than ever before.
Why are super PACs funded by the ultra-wealthy so attractive to candidates? Federal rules limit individual contributions to candidates for federal office, including the presidency, to $3,300 per election. There is. Therefore, an individual can give a candidate her $3,300 in the primary and her $3,300 in the general election. If a candidate is looking for the maximum number of donors, this means that for every $1 million raised, they need to find about 300 people to donate.
Candidates like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders were able to use this rule to generate large amounts of grassroots funding. They showed that by creating passion and enthusiasm among the masses, at a time he would be followed by $15, $25, or even $50. Some small donors reached the legal limit. But for most candidates, collecting individual contributions under federal rules is an arduous task and, in some cases, can result in minimal income.
This system also causes distortion. The Republican National Committee has set the criteria for eligibility for this year's presidential debates, using a combination of polling strength and the number of individual donors. Those who do not reach the threshold cannot participate in the debate, and the threshold increases with each debate.
This fall, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (Republican) struggled to qualify for debates. He has plenty of personal funds to fund his campaign. What he lacked were individual donors, so his campaign offered $20 gas cards to new donors who gave $1. Burgum advanced to the first two debates, but was unable to advance to the third debate in Miami last month.
Few strong candidates can run for president without the support of powerful super PACs, reinforcing the power of big-money donors. They are courted by candidates, their families, and top strategists, and sought out by political reporters as inside sources. Their opinions shouldn't carry as much weight as the opinions of voters in Iowa, Michigan, or Arizona about a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. But their voices are louder because they speak in dollar signs.
This fall, Thomas Peterphy tried to tempt Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) into joining his party's nomination race late. At the time, he told CBS News' Robert Costa that if Youngkin declared his candidacy, “the money would be there.” He meant a super PAC would be quickly formed to provide assistance.
Washington Post article The headline read, “Alarmed Republicans prepare to draft Glenn Youngkin.” But there was no apparent uptick among voters to draft the governor and former private equity executive. It was a bunch of nervous billionaires conspiring to join forces. And after the Republican loss in last month's Virginia state election, all that talk went away.
Would these big donors have made a difference if Youngkin had decided to run? The evidence is mixed. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush learned the limitations of this new system when he ran for president in 2016. He had been funding super PACs for a long time. Voters had other ideas. All of that money failed to generate voter support, and Bush ended his campaign in defeat after the South Carolina primary.
Candidates still have to do the work of campaigning, knowing why they're running, honing their message, and making a convincing case to voters. Money alone can't do it. This year, the people with the biggest bank accounts earned the best seats at the democratic table. But when primary and caucus season begins next month, voters will begin to make their voices heard.
