Will allowing political parties to raise more money bring about much-needed reform to the current state of campaign finance? Along with other recommendations, this new Brennan Center report thinks yes. Some people are skeptical.
Continue readingIt’s time for Congress to show us the money — in real time
Three simple ways you can help update disclosure for the 21st century.
Continue readingNo Justice Roberts, the Internet can’t do government’s job
Chief Justice John Roberts thinks the Internet can save democracy from big money. As some of the Internet's most devoted users, we disagree.
Continue readingReal time transparency bill a real time response to McCutcheon
Sen. Angus King responded quickly to the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC today, announcing the Real Time Transparency Act of 2014, requiring 48-hour disclosure of hard money campaign contributions of $1,000 or more.
Continue readingSunlight’s Response to SCOTUS Ruling on McCutcheon v FEC
Today, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the campaign finance case, McCutcheon v. the Federal Election Commission, ruling that aggregate limits over direct contributions to political candidates are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Continue readingMost likely to exceed: Who’s poised to double down post-McCutcheon
In advance of an expected Supreme Court decision on campaign finance limits, the Sunlight Foundation and Center for Responsive Politics look at donors most likely to exceed them.
Continue readingBreaking the limit: How the stealthy wealthy engaged in checkbook lobbying
Striking down the limits on how many federal candidates and party committees an individual can shower with campaign cash--the main issues in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission--would not only open the door to bigger money in politics, it could also open the door to stealth lobbying campaigns on Capitol Hill by well-heeled donors. We know that because it already has happened, when limits were in place but not enforced. More than two decades ago, when Congress considered reforms that would put the brakes on hostile takeovers by corporate raiders, some of them used their checkbooks and their access to derail the effort without ever disclosing their lobbying efforts. Back in 1989, federal election law limited the amount an individual could give to candidates, parties and political action committees to $25,000. That year Texas billionaire and corporate takeover artist Harold C. Simmons contributed $45,500. That year Simmons, a staunch Republican now best known for seven-figure contributions to groups like Swift Boat Vets for Truth and American Crossroads, gave plenty to GOP pols. But, unusual for him, he also wrote $1,000 checks to Democratic stalwarts like Sens. David Boren, D-Okla., Paul Simon, D-Ill., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., as well as a $15,000 check to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Texas billionaire Harold C. Simmons
The 1,000 donors most likely to benefit from McCutcheon — and what they are most likely to do
If the Supreme Court lifts limits on aggregate individual campaign contributions, as it may very likely do in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, it will empower the limited number of donors who have the heart, the stomach and the bankrolls to contribute hundreds of thousands of their own money to determine who is in office. These truly elite donors are poised to be the big winners.
In our recent analysis on the 1% of the 1%, we looked at the top 31,385 donors (.01% of the U.S. population). Today, we will focus just on the top 1,000 donors: the donors most likely to up their political giving if they are given the chance to donate even more. All of these donors contributed at least $134,300 of their own money in the 2012 election.
Our best guess is that parties and leadership committees will converge on these donors, giving roughly 1000 people a unique ability to set and limit the party agendas. Presumably, they will shift their money from super PACs to party committees because giving directly to party and leadership committees affords these donors more opportunities to talk directly to party leaders, and increases their bargaining power within the party structure. And party leaders want to control the money and the messages it buys.
2. Almost 2/3 of the Top 1,000 donors primarily support Republicans
59063
