‘No dough, no go’ for presidential hopefuls

Money still talks in US presidential elections, as political kingmakers think nothing of writing multimillion-dollar cheques to back their favourite candidates, writes Bette Browne.

REPUBLICAN candidate Jeb Bush would already be on course to win the US presidency by a landslide if securing the White House was based solely on fundraising prowess.

Official figures for the first six months of 2015 show Bush trouncing the fundraising machine of Democrat Hillary Clinton and leading the Republican field in what is set to be the most costly election in US history as millionaires and billionaires battle for power and tycoons pull the campaign strings behind the scenes.

Before Bush jumped into the race, the Clinton campaign juggernaut looked all-powerful. But, as of now, that is no longer the case. The latest fundraising figures from the Federal Election Commission show that Bush has raised $114.4m (€104m) compared with Clinton’s $63.1m.

Those figures include the amount raised by their respective super PACs (political action committees), which are not directly linked to the candidates but can take in unlimited donations, and their own campaign PACs that must cap individual donations at $2,700 per election.

When the figures are broken down between PACs and super PACS, one can see where Bush’s real advantage lies.

Of his $114.4m, a total of $103m came from super PACs and $11.4m from his campaign. Of Clinton’s $63.1m, a total of $15.6m came from super PACs and $47.5m from her campaign.

To put her $15.6m in perspective, it’s worth noting that two Texas brothers, fracking billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks, recently wrote a $15m cheque to a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC, the largest known donation so far in the presidential campaign.

So, while the overall amount is what counts, where the money comes from and who gives it can make all the difference, especially since super PACs tend to be paved with billionaires, each of whom can give as much as they like and as often as they like provided it’s not directly to the campaign.

But who are these putative political kingmakers in super PACs who think nothing of writing multimillion-dollar cheques to back their favourite candidates? They are wealthy, usually elderly, and enjoy contributing to politicians who can be relied upon in Congress to push their pet projects, which tend to favour corporate welfare over public welfare in the case of conservatives, or the reverse in the case of liberal super PACs.

These super PACs first emerged after a US Supreme Court ruling in 2010, referred to as Citizens United, which struck down limits on campaign funding. Among the leaders in this mega-wealthy club are casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, 82, who denies climate change. He has doled out lavishly to Bush and other Republican presidential hopefuls such as Senator Marco Rubio.

Then there are the Koch Brothers, David, 75, and Charles, 80, the world’s fifth and sixth-wealthiest individuals, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Koch Industries, which is involved in the petroleum and chemicals fields, has revenues of about $100bn annually. They’ve already pledged to spend $900m influencing the outcome of the 2016 election.

Well before Bush declared his presidential bid, boosted by the Republican establishment and his considerable family wealth, he began knocking on all the right doors.

Certainly, it seems to have paid off because, apart from edging out Clinton in the fundraising stakes, he’s also way ahead of his 15 other Republican rivals.

Yesterday, Bush, along with Rubio, Cruz, and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, was winding up a weekend donor meeting to which the four candidates were summoned by the Koch brothers to strut their stuff before the billionaire brothers and associates.

It’s early days, of course, but unless Democrats can find more mega-donors, their nominee, most likely Clinton, will face a major disadvantage against the Republican nominee, most likely Bush, in getting campaign messages out to voters as the race hots up.

It’s worth noting that a full-page ad in The New York Times, for example, can cost in the region of $200,000.

TV ads can run into millions. One month of TV ads in Nevada, for example, would cost nearly $2m, according to Fortune magazine.

Such ad campaigns will be running, on and off, in most of the 50 states over the next 15 months. It’s worth noting that the 2012 presidential election cost $2.6bn, making it then the country’s most expensive presidential race, though it looks as if it will be dwarfed by the current spending frenzy.

Right now, Republicans have the billionaire advantage. But Democrats can turn to billionaires too, such as George Soros, 85, and Warren Buffett, 84. Among the top 100 donors in the 2012 race in a list compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, 33 were billionaires and of those, 14 gave primarily to liberal groups while 19 gave to conservative groups.

It’s not all about money, of course, and the record shows that the well-moneyed in US elections are not always guaranteed to prevail. Democrat John Corizone of New Jersey, former head of Goldman Sachs, won election to the US senate in 2000 after spending $60m of his own money. A year later, Republican Michael Bloomberg spent $73m of his money in the race to become New York’s mayor. It doesn’t always work out that way. Republican business executive Meg Whitman spent $175m of her estimated $2bn personal fortune to try to become governor of California in 2010, only to lose to Democrat Jerry Brown, who spent $37m.

The Centre for Responsive Politics calculates that out of 58 candidates who used half a million dollars or more of their money on federal races in 2010, fewer than one in five won. Since 1990, only five of the top 20 self-financed candidates won, according to the centre.

Nevertheless, voters are not happy at either the perception or the reality that very wealthy people, or those pulling their campaign strings behind the scenes in super PACs, can effectively purchase unprecedented power and influence in a modern democracy.

There have been attempts at a push-back against such spending from voters who feel disenfranchised by the super PACs. At a Senate hearing last year, supporters delivered petitions with 3m signatures calling for a constitutional amendment to undo the effects of the Citizens United ruling that led to the creation of the super PAC, and 16 states have passed resolutions showing the ability to ratify such an amendment.

Back in 1988 when she withdrew from the presidential race because she lacked sufficient funds, Democratic candidate Pat Schroeder famously said: “No dough, no go.” Unfortunately for America, nearly 30 years later the phrase still encapsulates the battle for the White House.