Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Citizens United Changed Politics and Shaped the Tax Bill
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-and-shaped-tax-bill#.Wjwn6vDQoHY.twitterThe real impact of an unregulated campaign finance is on policy, and the proof is in this years tax bill.
. . .So whats going on? We have a theory, and it relates to that most famous of Supreme Court campaign finance cases, Citizens United, decided in 2010. When people talk about Citizens United which allowed unlimited independent spending in elections and indirectly led to now infamous super PACs they often talk about how it has opened the floodgates to massive amounts of money in our politics. This is a misconception. In fact, while the amount of money spent in federal elections since Citizens United has increased, the increase has not been particularly dramatic.
What has been dramatic is the change in who funds elections. Increasingly our elections are financed by just a handful of donors who make multimillion dollar contributions to support candidates for federal office. In 2010, the top 100 individual donors contributed just of $73 million to federal candidates, parties, and other committees, including super PACs. In 2012, that number increased to $380 million, and by 2016, it reached over $900 million.
All of this means that a few donors matter much more than they used to, and those donors can make threats that genuinely terrify members of Congress. Whereas before Citizens United donors of $100,000 or more could make up as little as 5 percent of all individual contributions in federal elections, after Citizens United they could represent as much as one in four dollars. Thats power!
The very real threat for members of Congress is that if they dont get tax reform done, they may face heavily financed challengers in primary races. Vice President Mike Pences chief of staff made clear he understood the power of such threats when he told donors they should reconsider their contributions in the event the tax bill fails. f I were you, I would not only stop donating, I would form a coalition of all the other major donors, and just say two things. Were definitely not giving to you, No. 1. And No. 2, if you dont have this done by Dec. 31, were going out, were recruiting opponents, were maxing out to their campaigns, and were funding super PACs to defeat all of you. . . .
What has been dramatic is the change in who funds elections. Increasingly our elections are financed by just a handful of donors who make multimillion dollar contributions to support candidates for federal office. In 2010, the top 100 individual donors contributed just of $73 million to federal candidates, parties, and other committees, including super PACs. In 2012, that number increased to $380 million, and by 2016, it reached over $900 million.
All of this means that a few donors matter much more than they used to, and those donors can make threats that genuinely terrify members of Congress. Whereas before Citizens United donors of $100,000 or more could make up as little as 5 percent of all individual contributions in federal elections, after Citizens United they could represent as much as one in four dollars. Thats power!
The very real threat for members of Congress is that if they dont get tax reform done, they may face heavily financed challengers in primary races. Vice President Mike Pences chief of staff made clear he understood the power of such threats when he told donors they should reconsider their contributions in the event the tax bill fails. f I were you, I would not only stop donating, I would form a coalition of all the other major donors, and just say two things. Were definitely not giving to you, No. 1. And No. 2, if you dont have this done by Dec. 31, were going out, were recruiting opponents, were maxing out to their campaigns, and were funding super PACs to defeat all of you. . . .
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 579 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Citizens United Changed Politics and Shaped the Tax Bill (Original Post)
CousinIT
Jan 2018
OP
Beartracks
(12,838 posts)1. Rich folks fund politicians to pass laws that benefit... rich folks!
Hey, America: Capitalism is not a form of governance.
============
BigmanPigman
(51,660 posts)2. Hey dude, where is my country?
I haven't seen it much since 1980.
moondust
(20,027 posts)3. Yup.
Worst decision ever. Turned D.C. into an unmitigated, unapologetic, GOP whorehouse.