Contributions could make election the most expensive in US history
By Tracy Quek, The Straits Times, 9 Jun 2012
WASHINGTON - Mr Sheldon Adelson may be famous for raking in mega-bucks from his casino businesses in Las Vegas, Macau and Singapore.
But the Las Vegas Sands chairman is now also making waves in the United States for placing chunks of his vast fortune in a big bet for political influence.
But the Las Vegas Sands chairman is now also making waves in the United States for placing chunks of his vast fortune in a big bet for political influence.
Mr Adelson, 78, and his wife Miriam have emerged as the 2012 election cycle's top individual donors.
The couple have so far shelled out as much as US$26.5 million (S$34million) to pro-Republican candidates, parties, political action committees and other interest groups, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics and the Centre for Public Integrity.
Both are independent research organisations tracking campaign financing based on US Federal Election Commission filings.
 |
US$60 million
The amount of money President Barack Obama raised last
month. Mr Obama could ultimately pull in US$1billion for
his re-election effort.
|
They are scarcely the only ones doing so. Behind the face-off between Democrat President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, a small network of super-rich donors intent on helping their preferred candidate win is impacting the US presidential campaign finance landscape like never before.
Their contributions are expected to make this year's election the most expensive in the country's history, and potentially turn the donors into a new influential force in American politics.
Groups influenced by high-profile conservative tycoons and Republican political operatives including Mr Karl Rove, former senior adviser to president George W. Bush, and oil and gas magnates Charles and David Koch, are planning to spend US$1 billion to grease Mr Romney's run for the White House, political news website Politico reported recently.
In 2008, Senator John McCain raised US$370 million for his unsuccessful presidential bid.
Mr Obama, who raised twice what Mr McCain did during the 2008 campaign, could also ultimately pull in US$1 billion for his re-election effort.
Their contributions are expected to make this year's election the most expensive in the country's history, and potentially turn the donors into a new influential force in American politics.
Groups influenced by high-profile conservative tycoons and Republican political operatives including Mr Karl Rove, former senior adviser to president George W. Bush, and oil and gas magnates Charles and David Koch, are planning to spend US$1 billion to grease Mr Romney's run for the White House, political news website Politico reported recently.
In 2008, Senator John McCain raised US$370 million for his unsuccessful presidential bid.
Mr Obama, who raised twice what Mr McCain did during the 2008 campaign, could also ultimately pull in US$1 billion for his re-election effort.
While donations pour in through traditional channels, many contributors are now also funding outside interest and political groups not directly connected to a candidate or party.
A new breed of political action committee (PAC) known as a 'super PAC' is a potent type of outside group that has made it easier than ever for the well-heeled on both sides of the political spectrum to pour in unprecedented amounts to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.
Unlike political parties and candidates, super PACs can accept and spend unlimited funds from corporations, unions or wealthy individuals, so long as the money is used independently of the candidate's campaign.
Most of it is spent on aggressive TV advertising.
Super PACs emerged in 2010 following two controversial Supreme Court rulings that loosened campaign finance restrictions.
Mr Obama initially opposed super PACs, saying it was hard to tell where the money was coming from.
But as right-wing groups raised vast sums for his opponents, Mr Obama changed his mind in February, announcing that he would work with pro-left super PAC, Priorities USA Action.
The Obama camp is now trying to match the conservative money machine by increasingly turning to Hollywood, the technology sector, and the gay community for financial firepower.
A fund-raising dinner last month hosted by actor George Clooney raised US$15 million for Mr Obama.
Next Thursday, the First Couple will sit down to another dinner hosted by actress Sarah Jessica Parker and Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour.
But in this year's campaign so far, conservative donors have vastly outspent the liberals.
Of the 25 top overall individual donors ranked by the Centre for Responsive Politics, only four were liberals with a combined US$7.5 million out of pocket as of mid-May.
In contrast, the 21 conservative donors on the list, who include hedge-fund managers, property developers and industrialists, have together poured out over 10 times more - US$77 million.
Professor Bruce Owen, an expert on campaign finance at Stanford University, notes that the biggest donors are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
'Politicians have discovered that they can raise money more easily if they take extreme positions that tap into strong emotions,' he said.
'The result is some bad rhetoric but worse than that, it encourages gridlock because if you're a true believer in your cause, it's much harder to compromise.'
And with most super PACs spending big on media advertising aimed at eliciting an emotional response, 'there is a tendency to emphasise passionate decision-making rather than informed decision-making based on a rational analysis of information about candidates', Prof Owen added.
That is not the only reason why outside interest groups such as super PACs are attracting increasing controversy.
Technically, super PACs must operate separately and spend money independently of a candidate's official campaign.
In contrast, the 21 conservative donors on the list, who include hedge-fund managers, property developers and industrialists, have together poured out over 10 times more - US$77 million.
Professor Bruce Owen, an expert on campaign finance at Stanford University, notes that the biggest donors are on the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
'Politicians have discovered that they can raise money more easily if they take extreme positions that tap into strong emotions,' he said.
'The result is some bad rhetoric but worse than that, it encourages gridlock because if you're a true believer in your cause, it's much harder to compromise.'
And with most super PACs spending big on media advertising aimed at eliciting an emotional response, 'there is a tendency to emphasise passionate decision-making rather than informed decision-making based on a rational analysis of information about candidates', Prof Owen added.
That is not the only reason why outside interest groups such as super PACs are attracting increasing controversy.
Technically, super PACs must operate separately and spend money independently of a candidate's official campaign.
But in practice, a super PAC that supports a particular candidate is often run by people with close ties to him or her.
The groups are also required to disclose their donors, but loopholes in the rules governing super PACs have allowed some to remain out of the limelight.
Critics have attacked these groups for their lack of transparency and accountability.
But the big question is: How much of a difference will all this money make at the polls?
Not much, experts reckoned.
Prof Owen pointed out that if both candidates attract roughly the same amounts, they would balance each other out.
The real issue is that the current system 'over-emphasises groups that are able to organise themselves for political action including lobbying and campaign contribution. This disempowers other groups that do not have the means', he said.
Although there have been some attempts by politicians to limit super PACs, analysts say they are here to stay.
Campaign finance expert Professor Candice Nelson of American University noted: 'Once you let the genie out of the bottle, it is extremely hard to put it back in.'
Although there have been some attempts by politicians to limit super PACs, analysts say they are here to stay.
Campaign finance expert Professor Candice Nelson of American University noted: 'Once you let the genie out of the bottle, it is extremely hard to put it back in.'
'Big spenders' out to swing the vote
CONSERVATIVES
- Sheldon and Miriam Adelson
Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson, 78, ranks 14th on the Forbes list of the world's top billionaires, with a net worth estimated at US$24.9 billion (S$31.8 billion).
He is an outspoken supporter of Israel.
The couple's contributions to super political action committees (PACs) total US$25 million to US$26.5 million, estimates the Centre for Responsive Politics and Centre for Public Integrity.
The figure includes some US$20 million to Winning Our Future, a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC.
He is an outspoken supporter of Israel.
The couple's contributions to super political action committees (PACs) total US$25 million to US$26.5 million, estimates the Centre for Responsive Politics and Centre for Public Integrity.
The figure includes some US$20 million to Winning Our Future, a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC.
- Harold Simmons
The Texas tycoon heads Contran Corp, a chemicals and metals conglomerate.
Mr Simmons, 80, ranks 100th on the Forbes list of the world's top billionaires, with a net worth estimated at US$9 billion. He and his wife Annette have given US$18 million to six super PACs.
Their largest single contribution of about US$12 million went to Conservative group American Crossroads, co-founded by Mr Karl Rove, once an adviser to former president George W. Bush.
Mr Simmons has also given US$1.1 million to Winning Our Future and $800,000 to Restore Our Future (a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC).
- Bob Perry
The Texas-based property developer heads Perry Homes. Mr Perry, 80, has contributed US$8 million, including US$2.5 million to American Crossroads and US$4 million to Restore Our Future.
The Texas-based property developer heads Perry Homes. Mr Perry, 80, has contributed US$8 million, including US$2.5 million to American Crossroads and US$4 million to Restore Our Future.
LIBERALS
- Amy Goldman
A philanthropist and writer, Ms Goldman, 58, is the daughter of Mr Sol Goldman, once one of New York's wealthiest private landlords.
She is associated with Sol Goldman Investments, a top New York City real estate company. She has donated US$2.3 million to pro-Democratic groups and campaigns, including pro-Barack Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, which received US$1 million.
A philanthropist and writer, Ms Goldman, 58, is the daughter of Mr Sol Goldman, once one of New York's wealthiest private landlords.
She is associated with Sol Goldman Investments, a top New York City real estate company. She has donated US$2.3 million to pro-Democratic groups and campaigns, including pro-Barack Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action, which received US$1 million.
Ms Goldman has also donated US$1 million to Planned Parenthood Votes, a super PAC associated with the women's health organisation.
- Jeffrey Katzenberg
The chief executive of DreamWorks Animation donated about US$2 million to Priorities USA Action.
The group produced Internet videos attacking Republican front runner Mitt Romney.
Mr Katzenberg, 61, told CBS News in April that he donated because he 'was concerned about the attempted hijacking of the elections by Karl Rove, David and Charles Koch, and other extreme right-wing special-interest money, and felt strongly that a defence had to be mounted'.
Mr Katzenberg, 61, told CBS News in April that he donated because he 'was concerned about the attempted hijacking of the elections by Karl Rove, David and Charles Koch, and other extreme right-wing special-interest money, and felt strongly that a defence had to be mounted'.
No comments:
Post a Comment