From an interview with a large donor:
Here’s how Hoffman puts it: “Large donors … often serve as an
executive board of sorts, challenging campaigns to act worthy of their
investment.” Hoffman writes, “Trump brags that he is without big donors. That may
be true. But it also means he is without restraint. … In business and
politics alike, oversight is a good thing.” If you’re not paying close attention, that makes the whole process
sound public-spirited and inspiring. If you are, however,
you realize Hoffman is telling us that he and his cohort see their money
as buying them seats on the board of a corporation they ultimately
control.
Hoffman acknowledges a possible downside of the system: “Raising
seven figures for a candidate grants you access that the average voter
will never see. This unfairness has been a source of major voter ire
this cycle. Injustice makes people angry. And it is angry voters who
have been pulling levers for Trump.” But he dismisses it in favor of an even loftier goal. Big donors
aren’t just backing a candidate, he says; they’re also investing in
their ideology.
Super PAC Backer Says Big Money Entitles Donors to Campaign “Oversight”
I think this is an unhealthy part of our political system. It's unfortunate that the wealthiest people are able to "invest in their ideology" instead of letting the public's ideology progress on its own. The more money you have, the more influence you are able to impose upon politics. It's almost a form of aristocracy.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of the introduction of Dark Money. Paul Krugman points out that "We are on the road not just to a highly unequal society, but to a society of an oligarchy. A society of inherited wealth. When you have a few people who are so wealthy that they can effectively buy the political system, the political system is going to tend to serve their interests" (10). The "oligarchs" with superior economic power never directly ruled America, but like Mario said, they indirectly influenced politics for their own good.
ReplyDeleteIs there any form of government that has measures to prevent money from buying influence? This is really no different than lobbying. Obviously there are people who take advantage of their wealth to push their own agendas, but couldn't this potentially be good for positive movements too/
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this Fortune article, the startup costs for Presidential Election to set up the headquarters are $10 million.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is the average of additional $10 million to campaign in each state.
Clearly, being a presidential candidate cannot just come with great policies and supporters; it comes with money.
And running a campaign is different from winning the election. It costs much more to actually win the election.
And as mentioned above, large donors have been the main(or maybe only) source of the income for these presidential candidates.
However, Bernie Sanders has shown that large donors may not be the only model that works.
This Huffington Post article states that "The vast majority of Sanders’ money has come from donors giving under $200 ... Further, the $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations averaging $27 a piece."
The 2015 fourth quarter total showed that 70 percent of Sanders campaign's donations came from samll donors.
(www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fundraising-_us_56ae4f7ee4b0010e80ea7bdb)
I personally think this is the money that came from actual citizens of the United States.
If it's clear to everyone that large donors are indeed vicious to the system, can there be some kind of regulations on large donors, who will later be benefited after he/she becomes the president?
And let the people be given bigger power on elections through small donations?
Spinoza said, "Ambition is the immoderate desire for power." I think once you become billionaires who have so much they want in this materialistic society,
power is the next thing you want naturally.
What do you guys think?