SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Conservatives Buoyed by Historic Flood of Money Into Politics
New report from Center for Responsive Politics finds single-candidate groups have spent $16.2 million total so far—over 55 times levels seen in 2012—and conservatives disproportionately benefit
Sep 21, 2015
Political spending by outside groups seeking to the influence the 2016 presidential election is already dramatically out-pacing that of previous years, thanks in large part to the flood of dark money and super PAC cash in support of conservative candidates, a report released Monday from the Center for Responsive Politics finds.
As of September 21, political organizations "outside the party or official campaign structure" had poured $25.1 million into the cycle--a five-fold increase over the last presidential contest, researchers Robert Maguire and Will Tucker concluded based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.
However, when you isolate single-candidate spending, the increase is even more dramatic.
"Of the 40 organizations that have spent the most so far in the 2016 cycle--a list that includes political nonprofits, super PACs and business associations--more than half are dedicated to one candidate and one race," the report states. "The same is true of the top 20 biggest spenders, which includes 11 single-candidate groups."
As of mid-September, single-candidate groups had spent $16.2 million total--over 55 times levels seen in 2012, the report notes.
These single-candidate groups are far more likely to favor conservatives. Out of the 20 top spenders, only one has what the report calls a "liberal viewpoint."
"Single-candidate PACs have been around for at least two elections, and they make a mockery of the FEC's coordination rules," Maguire told Common Dreams. "A super PAC founded by your best friend that does nothing but raise money and buy ads supporting your candidacy is not an independent organization."
Maguire emphasized that outside spending so far is staggering. "I was amazed to see we are so far ahead we are of the last two record-setting cycles," he said.
The findings follow numerous reports which show that, over five years after the passage of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Citizens United, outside spending, dark money, and corporate influence are dominating U.S. elections.
Meanwhile, surveys suggest the public opposes the over-sized role of outside dollars. A poll released by The New York Times and CBS in June found that the majority of people in the U.S. is against the unlimited flow of dollars into politics, do not think money equals speech, and want to restrict the power of the one percent to buy ballot outcomes.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Political spending by outside groups seeking to the influence the 2016 presidential election is already dramatically out-pacing that of previous years, thanks in large part to the flood of dark money and super PAC cash in support of conservative candidates, a report released Monday from the Center for Responsive Politics finds.
As of September 21, political organizations "outside the party or official campaign structure" had poured $25.1 million into the cycle--a five-fold increase over the last presidential contest, researchers Robert Maguire and Will Tucker concluded based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.
However, when you isolate single-candidate spending, the increase is even more dramatic.
"Of the 40 organizations that have spent the most so far in the 2016 cycle--a list that includes political nonprofits, super PACs and business associations--more than half are dedicated to one candidate and one race," the report states. "The same is true of the top 20 biggest spenders, which includes 11 single-candidate groups."
As of mid-September, single-candidate groups had spent $16.2 million total--over 55 times levels seen in 2012, the report notes.
These single-candidate groups are far more likely to favor conservatives. Out of the 20 top spenders, only one has what the report calls a "liberal viewpoint."
"Single-candidate PACs have been around for at least two elections, and they make a mockery of the FEC's coordination rules," Maguire told Common Dreams. "A super PAC founded by your best friend that does nothing but raise money and buy ads supporting your candidacy is not an independent organization."
Maguire emphasized that outside spending so far is staggering. "I was amazed to see we are so far ahead we are of the last two record-setting cycles," he said.
The findings follow numerous reports which show that, over five years after the passage of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Citizens United, outside spending, dark money, and corporate influence are dominating U.S. elections.
Meanwhile, surveys suggest the public opposes the over-sized role of outside dollars. A poll released by The New York Times and CBS in June found that the majority of people in the U.S. is against the unlimited flow of dollars into politics, do not think money equals speech, and want to restrict the power of the one percent to buy ballot outcomes.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Political spending by outside groups seeking to the influence the 2016 presidential election is already dramatically out-pacing that of previous years, thanks in large part to the flood of dark money and super PAC cash in support of conservative candidates, a report released Monday from the Center for Responsive Politics finds.
As of September 21, political organizations "outside the party or official campaign structure" had poured $25.1 million into the cycle--a five-fold increase over the last presidential contest, researchers Robert Maguire and Will Tucker concluded based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.
However, when you isolate single-candidate spending, the increase is even more dramatic.
"Of the 40 organizations that have spent the most so far in the 2016 cycle--a list that includes political nonprofits, super PACs and business associations--more than half are dedicated to one candidate and one race," the report states. "The same is true of the top 20 biggest spenders, which includes 11 single-candidate groups."
As of mid-September, single-candidate groups had spent $16.2 million total--over 55 times levels seen in 2012, the report notes.
These single-candidate groups are far more likely to favor conservatives. Out of the 20 top spenders, only one has what the report calls a "liberal viewpoint."
"Single-candidate PACs have been around for at least two elections, and they make a mockery of the FEC's coordination rules," Maguire told Common Dreams. "A super PAC founded by your best friend that does nothing but raise money and buy ads supporting your candidacy is not an independent organization."
Maguire emphasized that outside spending so far is staggering. "I was amazed to see we are so far ahead we are of the last two record-setting cycles," he said.
The findings follow numerous reports which show that, over five years after the passage of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Citizens United, outside spending, dark money, and corporate influence are dominating U.S. elections.
Meanwhile, surveys suggest the public opposes the over-sized role of outside dollars. A poll released by The New York Times and CBS in June found that the majority of people in the U.S. is against the unlimited flow of dollars into politics, do not think money equals speech, and want to restrict the power of the one percent to buy ballot outcomes.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.