OpenSecrets.org reported that Super PACs have contributed over $150 million to the current primaries. Though these groups were not created by the candidates and national political parties, they support their respective causes. Some donors have been publicly exposed despite the anonymity associated with donating to Super PACs. In this post, I will focus on the people contributing money in support of the GOP candidates.
RESTORE OUR FUTURE: Mitt Romney
Bob J. Perry -$4 million – This homebuilder from Texas initially supported Rick Perry’s campaign before spending money for Mitt Romney. The Center for Public Integrity claimed he was partially responsible for the former controversy over Senator John Kerry’s military record. They also suspected that he helped President Bush get reelected in 2004.
Steven Lund – $2 million – Lund is the Vice Chairman of NuSkin, a Utah-based company, which creates skincare products and dietary supplements.
Julian Robertson – $1.25 million – Robertson was the CEO of the Tiger Management Corporation in New York, which is currently closed.
John Paulson – $1 million – Paulson, who is President of the hedge fund Paulson & Company, bet money against the subprime mortgage market in 2007 and became a billionaire. His current net worth is almost $16 billion.
Edward Conard -$1 million – Conard has been a longtime supporter of Mitt Romney because he served as the co-head of Bain Capital for over 14 years. He currently leads Waters Corporation and Sensata Technologies.
Paul Edgerly – $1 million – Edgerly is a current Bain Capital executive. Bain Capital is a private investment company that was co-founded by Mitt Romney.
Paul Singer – $1 million -As the CEO of the Elliot Management hedge fund, Singer advocated for New Jersey’s same-sex legislation and originally wanted Governor Chris Christie to run for president.
Robert Mercer – $1 million – Mercer is the hedge fund manager of Renaissance Technologies in New York.
Frank Rooney – $1 million -Rooney was responsible for building the current Dallas Comboy’s stadium, and he served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Frank L. VanderSloot – $1 million -VanderSloot is both finance co-chairman of Romney’s campaign and CEO of a dietary/cleaning company called Melaleuca.
William Koch – $1 million – William Koch is the head of Oxbow Carbon.
Mike Fernandez – $1 million – Fernandez heads MBF Healthcare Partners in Florida.
Some leaders in the for-profit college sector also donated money to “Restore Our Future”. The Apollo Group, which owns Phoenix University, contributed $75,000 to Romney’s Super-PAC last month. James Heavener, the CEO of Full Sail University, gave $85,000 and fundraises for Romney in Florida. Kevin Landry has some financial stake in Full Sail University as head of TA Associates, and he donated $120,000. Todd Nelson, CEO of Education Management Corps., has contributed$5,000. Mr. Nelson oversees the functions of various Art Institutes and similar for-profit institutions; in addition, his wife Amy Nelson gave $50,000. USA Today reported that for-profit colleges enroll only 12 percent of American students but are responsible for over half the debt accrued by the total graduating population. Nonetheless, Romney’s campaign has intricate ties to this industry because his family has investments in Goldman Sachs Capital Partners. This group, which consists of many Romney supporters, has 42 percent of the ownership claims in Education Management Corps.
RED, WHITE, AND BLUE FUND: Rick Santorum
Foster Freiss – $1.6 million – This faithful contributor to Rick Santorum is a mutual fund investor; he spent another $9,000 on behalf of Santorum’s campaign as of March 30. Recently, Freiss made some interesting remarks in the current contraception debate because he stated that Bayer aspirin was a simple contraception tool women used to put between their legs years ago. However, he thinks there is too much public discussion on sex in the current age.
William Dore – $1.5 million – William Dore is the head of Dore Energy Group in Louisiana.
Harold Simmons – $1 million - Simmons has always been supported Republican candidates in presidential campaigns because he paid for advertisements attacking both Barack Obama and John Kerry in his home state of Texas.
WINNING OUR FUTURE: Newt Gingrich
The Adelsons – $16.5 million – Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are the owners of various casinos and hotels through their Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Sheldon donated to Newt Gingrich for his both his conservatism and views on Israel. Adelson comes from a Jewish family, but his father never visited Israel when he was alive. Therefore, Mr. Adelson funds the group Birthright Israel, which allows Jewish youth to see their spiritual homeland. Gingrich wants move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is a desire Adelson wants materialized. However, he thinks Gingrich will be out of the race sooner than later because he has faced a lot of losses in the current primaries.
Harold Simmons – $1.1 million
ENDORSE LIBERTY: Ron Paul
Peter Thiel – $2.6 million – Thiel is co-founder of PayPal and used to invest in Facebook. As the only notable donor to “Endorse Liberty”, he only contributed money in January and none in February. Laura Strickler from CBS News reported that this Super-PAC had spent less money than it received in February, so perhaps Ron Paul may be out of the race soon.
AMERICAN CROSSROADS: GOP Party
Harold Simmons – $12 million
Bob Perry – $2.5 million
Irving Moskowitz – $1 million – Moskowitz is a retired doctor who created a charity in California. He supports Israeli expansion in Eastern Jerusalem.
A. Jerrold Perenchio – $2.5 million – Perenchio is the former Chairman of Univision, which is a Spanish television channel.
Robert Rowling – $2.5 million - As CEO of TRT Holdings, Inc., Rowling owns Omni hotels and has ties to the oil industry.
Dean White – $1 million – White is the CEO of Whiteco Industries, Inc., which is a construction and advertisement company based in Indiana.
Now that I have reviewed all the names, contributions, and backgrounds of these donors, I would like to point out some key characteristics of the Super PAC donors. This information portrays who is – and is not – the average donor. Primarily, most of these men are upper-class and work in the financial, energy, and hospitality sectors. Rather than contribute $10, $25, or $50, they have to give at least $500,000 to the Super-PAC of their choice. According to Charles Riley, these 3.7 percent of American donors have contributed 80 percent of all the money spent so far in the elections. Therefore, racial minorities and women are the least represented in these groups, so they are rare kind of Super PAC donor. Emily Wilkins found women represented only 14 percent of Super PAC donors, which is a reversal of a previously upward trend in female political contributions. Whereas wealthy men prefer to give money to Super PACs, women overwhelmingly support charitable causes.
I think it is safe to say that Citizens United took campaign financing to an entirely new level. The $5,000 donation cap formerly placed on longtime political action committees became unlimited for Super PACs. Meanwhile, just a few people in the American population are responsible for most of the money spent so far in the campaigns. While much of the information in this post may be overwhelming and even uncomfortable, such facts have prompted some Senators to push for a new law aiming to restrain the recent effects of Citizens United. My next post focus on how such money is spent, but I leave you with ProPublica’s music video, Oh, Super PACs!, for now.
2010 Supreme Court Decision Impacts Current GOP Primaries
In January 2010, the Supreme Court reached a shocking verdict in regards to campaign financing. The Court reached a 5-4 decision that allowed corporate donors to face fewer restrictions on the amount of money they contributed to campaigns in Citizens United v. FEC. Corporate spending on elections was interpreted as a Free Speech right that was protected under the First Amendment, for corporations are legal persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. In May 2010, a FederalCourt upheld the Citizens United bill when it permitted Super PACS to accept unlimited amounts of money from corporate donors in SpeechNow v. FEC. How did this all happen after years of regulations? Well, allow me take you back the 2008 Democratic Primaries.
As Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battled each other in the primaries, the conservative action group Citizens United had a different agenda. This nonprofit group, which received corporate funding, wanted to inform Americans on Sen. Clinton’s scandalous and divisive traits in the TV documentary Hillary: The Movie. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen. Barack Obama, and other political pundits were included in this film seeking to brand her as ill-equipped for the presidency. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) prohibited public showing of the movie under provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act (2002) banning advertisements supporting or attacking candidates close to voting dates. Citizens United decided to sue the FEC over this ban and this case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Though it was initially focused upon the FEC restriction, it eventually transformed into a larger debate regarding special interests groups and their Free Speech rights.
Various laws prohibited corporations and unions from freely spending money in elections. The Federal Election Campaign Act (1971) restricted union and corporate expenditures on campaigns, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) sought to limit the co-option of corporations in elections and the McCain-Feingold Act (2003) contained various rules regarding campaign donations from all sources. In response, Citizen United’s attorney Theodore Olson contended that such laws were all unconstitutional because they essentially limited corporate free speech. As a nonprofit organization funded by corporations, Citizens United wanted such bans on advertisements and spending eliminated.
Attorney Olson was in luck because Republican Justices in the Court considered his plea. In the final verdict, they struck down corporate finance bans found in all three laws previously mentioned. Therefore, most corporate restrictions for campaign spending were overruled and advertisements could be biased towards specific candidates at any time. This case was decided in January 2010, and served as a precedent for SpeechNow v. FEC(2010). A Washington, D.C. Federal District Court ruled that Super PACS could receive unlimited funding from corporate donors who could remain anonymous; Super PACS used to have a $5,000 limit on donations until Judges overruled that limit through SpeechNow in May 2010. In effect, Congress would have more difficulty passing a law like McCain-Feingold, and states have to adhere to the precedence of Citizen United v. FEC (2010). The legal impact of Citizens United clearly shows that this law had substantial effects on campaign financing just months after its creation and in the possibly in the future.
Today, a plethora of online blogs and news sources shed insight on campaign financing within the current GOP primaries. The Young Turks reported that a group of Wall Street billionaires pledged to defeat President Obama in this year’s election with $100 million. David and Charles Koch, two brothers heading Koch Industries, held a fundraiser to raise this money, with Charles Koch contributing about $40 million to this cause. On the other hand, most corporate-based money has been going to Mitt Romney’s campaign. A recent Reuters article showed that D.C. lobbyists within the financial and health sectors gave money to his campaign because they support his pro-business stance. About $1.5 million has been given to Romney from 390 lobbyists, some of whom include Google, Inc. and AT&T. However, the other three candidates received a mere $94,000 combined from their lobbyists. Over 65 percent of the political ads aired in the recent Alabama and Mississippi primaries were in support of Romney. Greg Giroux from Bloomberg noted that the “Restore Our Future” Super PAC for Romney aired over 3,656 ads in comparison to 865 from “Winning Our Future” for Gingrich and 582 from “Red, White, and Blue” for Santorum. Altogether, OpenSecrets.org has found that outside spending for both President Obama and the GOP candidates has reached over $92 million, with Super PACS contributing almost $80 million to the overall total reported. In comparison, the total expenditures from the 2008 elections at this time were only $37.8 million, and the amount of public disclosure on Super PAC funders has nose-dived. This information clearly shows that Citizens United and the subsequent SpeechNow decision have really opened the floodgates for rampant corporate spending on electoral campaigns.
It is truly remarkable at how much money has been spent so far on the 2012 presidential race as a result of Citizens United. Although these politicians accept donations from the general public, corporate sources have provided them with substantial funds. The suppression of a documentary critiquing a past presidential candidate paved the way for many restrictions on campaign financing to be overturned. Two years later, a high amount of political donations stem from corporate-backed sources that can essentially influence other voters through television advertisements. Perhaps American politics may be eventually overtaken by pure business interests, but online sources have exposed the numbers since bloggers frequently comment on Citizens United’spolitical impact. In my next post, I will discuss how various political pundits have expressed their views on the Citizens United v. FEC.decision through blogs.
It really is a shame … So many of us know Rick Santorum wears sweater-vests, Newt Gingrich thinks Mitt Romney is a liar, and that Romney drove his car several feet before remembering his dog was on the roof. We do not, however, know what these men stand for. These men, along with Ron Paul (who is often too busy napping, eating prunes, etc… to do anything noteworthy), all have the potential to be the next leader of the United States. As Americans, we have an obligation to, at the very least, have a basic understanding of their positions on relevant American issues (beyond that which we hear from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert). In fact, the younger generation, the college-aged youth, has the greatest responsibility to stay informed due to its ubiquitous capacity for diverse media consumption. In other words, younger people have no excuse as to why they are not informed about the potential presidents’ political positions.
No longer can we say that we are “too busy” – each GOP candidate has a twitter, “tweets” every few minutes, and never says anything more than 20 words long.
How about the inconvenience factor? Doesn’t exist! A majority of college-aged youth waste minutes to hours a day staring at Facebook, waiting anxiously for notifications that rarely come. That time could be much better spent learning about the presidential candidates, all of whom have Facebook pages.
In light of all of this hooplah, I have made the following chart which explains the candidates’ positions on Abortion, Education, Immigration, and The Economy in two sentences or less! Until next time, enjoy!
Says Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court and states should decide their own abortion laws.
Favors constitutional abortion ban and opposes abortion, including in cases of rape.
Says federal government should have no authority either to legalize or ban abortion.
No subsidies for abortion but not a constitutional abortion ban.
Supported No Child Left Behind law. Once favored shutting Education DepartmentNow sees its value in “holding down the interests of the teachers’ unions.”
Voted for No Child Left Behind law, now regrets vote. Wants “significantly” smaller Education Department but not its elimination.
Abolish the Education Department and end the federal role in education.
Shrink Education Department. (Though supported Obama administration’s $4 billion Race to the Top grant competition.)
Wants to Veto legislation that seeks to award legal status to some young illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the armed forces. Favors complete U.S.-Mexico border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants.
Supports complete border fence, opposes education benefits to illegal immigrants.
Wants to do “whatever it takes” to secure the border, end rights to citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.No social services for illegal immigrants.Favors aggressive deportation.
Supports giving legal status to illegal immigrants with deep roots in the U.S.Supports path to citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children who perform U.S. military service. Divert more Homeland Security assets to at Mexican border.
Eliminate corporate taxes for manufacturersDrill for more oil and gas, and slash regulations.
Lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. Repeal new financial ndustry regulations.
Return to the gold standard, eliminate the Federal Reserve, eliminate most federal regulations.
Repeal the financial industry regulations that followed the Wall Street meltdown. Restrict the Fed’s power to set interest rates artificially low.
Source: Calvin Woodward. “Republican Presidential Candidates On Key Issues.” Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/republican-candidates-stand-on-key-issues_n_1224562.html
Update (3/27/12): One of our reader’s left a comment suggesting my chart was subject to “liberal bias” given the source from which I obtained my information on the candidates’ stances. The Huffington Post is often cited as an extremely liberally leaning news source. If one Googles “Huffington post liberal bias,” millions of links come up admonishing The Huffington Post’s blatant preference for presenting republicans and conservative view points jokingly. Admittedly, I did not consider the potential for the candidates’ stances to be presented differently depending on where I looked. In order to balance (what I assumed was) my inherently biased information, I searched Fox News’ website for the candidates’ positions on the issues. As it turns out, the Huffington Post’s presentation of the candidates’ positions is exactly the same as Fox News’. Both sources, in spite of their polar opposite political leanings, copied the candidates’ positions verbatim from the Associated Press.
The Associated Press (AP) is a wire service. The AP employs journalists across the globe and is committed to providing independent, unbiased hard news that “ is seen by half the world’s population on any given day.” We are often skeptical of any journalistic source that claims to be “unbiased.” However, there is something to be said for a news organization from which a majority of mainstream news organizations, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, receive the news they report to the public. Though many news organizations tweak the raw material they receive from the AP to appease their respective audiences, the facts and source from which they receive their information are the same. Why then, do we anticipate and even expect bias so readily? My guess is that what makes us weary is not necessarily the source from which our news comes, but the language journalists use to present it. Mainstream news organizations have public images to maintain and roles to fill. For example, we expect Fox to report news with a conservative bias. If Fox were to stray from that expectation, it would most likely cause an uproar and at the very least, a lot of skepticism and confusion. Language allows journalists, public figures, and politicians to manipulate the facts. Bias comes into play, therefore, as a result of the rhetoric used to convince the audience one’s point of view. News, and furthermore, reality is not inherently biased. People who must maintain a liberal or conservative image to appease the public are biased.
For my next post, I will discuss political rhetoric used among the republican primaries. Specifically, I will focus on the origin and use of the phrase “Obamacare.” This phrase has become ubiquitous in political discourse and has been particularly unavoidable, especially on twitter, during the last several days in light of the pending supreme court decision.