Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Citizens United: the impact.
December 14, 2011 7:42 AM   Subscribe

Red money, blue money: The making of the 2012 campaign. "More than 80 percent of giving to Super PACs so far has come from just 58 donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the latest data, which covers the first half of 2011." This Salon piece details who the (surprisingly small) number of large donors are, and the SuperPACs they donate to.
posted by jaduncan (18 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
58 people out of 300,000,000 - that's WAY less than 1%
posted by victors at 7:47 AM on December 14, 2011 [5 favorites]


Yay for the money on "our side" (the righteous)!

Boo for the money on "their side" (the bastards)!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 AM on December 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


Nobody on "my side" has enough money to influence politics, sadly. So, I guess that's "boo" all around.
posted by absalom at 7:54 AM on December 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


Boo for the increasing dependence on a small array of large external donors on both sides?
posted by jaduncan at 7:55 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


No, for many of us I suspect it's, "Boo for the money on either side." Since, you know, most of us don't have enough money to have political opinions that actually count in our society.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:56 AM on December 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


yep. suspicion confirmed, it seems.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:57 AM on December 14, 2011


Related: Should politicians wear uniforms like NASCAR racers to identify their corporate sponsors?
posted by oulipian at 8:19 AM on December 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


Should politicians wear uniforms like NASCAR racers to identify their corporate sponsors?

Great idea. Someone should Photoshop the candidates wearing the logos of their corporate and nonprofit sponsors. Of course, as with NASCAR, the positions and sizes of the logos should be related to the size of the donations.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:30 AM on December 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


It is actually only one side, and sure as hell it ain't yours.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 8:31 AM on December 14, 2011 [4 favorites]


One thing is for certain, there is no stopping them; the oligarchs will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new billionaire overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted internet commenter, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground money-polishing caves.
posted by mattbucher at 8:48 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


We may be standing on the smoldering ashes of Democracy but hey, at least we can paraphrase Simpsons quotes!
posted by Legomancer at 8:56 AM on December 14, 2011


This Salon piece details who the (surprisingly small) number of large donors are

I hate to say it, but 58 sound surprisingly large to me. I figured it'd pretty much just be the Koch brothers.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:04 AM on December 14, 2011


Since, you know, most of us don't have enough money to have political opinions that actually count in our society.

And getting a large group of "us" together to pool our money for a common interest would be...I'm not sure what, exactly, but apparently it would be utterly impractical to do if anyone were serious about it, but entirely possible when done as a joke.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:08 AM on December 14, 2011 [4 favorites]


We may be standing on the smoldering ashes of Democracy but hey, at least we can paraphrase Simpsons quotes!


Oh, lighten up. Your smoldering ashes of democracy are just the sort of "we're doomed!" hopelessness we don't need. There are several good proposals for limiting the impact of soft money in elections (#1, don't elect republican presidents who appoint corporate puppets to the supreme court), but as yet, there is no unilateral policy proposal for removing humor from the internet.
posted by mattbucher at 9:30 AM on December 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


"And getting a large group of "us" together to pool our money for a common interest would be...I'm not sure what, exactly, but apparently it would be utterly impractical to do if anyone were serious about it, but entirely possible when done as a joke."
posted by DevilsAdvocate

But look at the numbers that unions put up. Despite their long steady decline, they are one of the only organized forces counteracting the dollar-fortified-super-speech of the 58/1%/Stinkin' rich bastards.

Every time you hear some Fox-ignorant pundit spout off about union money dirtying up politics, remember that it represents the political speech of millions of working class Americans.
posted by jetsetsc at 10:02 AM on December 14, 2011 [5 favorites]


Every time you hear some Fox-ignorant pundit spout off about union money dirtying up politics, remember that it represents the political speech of millions of working class Americans.

No, it represents the political speech of the unions, which is nowhere near the same thing.
posted by DWRoelands at 10:38 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


"No, it represents the political speech of the unions, which is nowhere near the same thing."

It's the best approximation in politics at the moment, and there are still something like 14 million union members in the US. Hey, I'm the first to admit that union influence is imperfect (and occasionally counter-productive), but I'm sure glad it's there as a counterbalance to the interests of the oligarchs.
posted by jetsetsc at 10:52 AM on December 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Boo for the increasing dependence on a small array of large external donors on both sides?"

Unless you can find it in your heart to view this as a giant wealth-distribution scheme where these folks collect enormous sums of money, some of which will get spent in communities and local businesses where it will do some good. Which is balanced by the larger amount that will be spent on TV ads, but it's better than nothing. More campaign lunches! More hustings! More secret service agents!
posted by sneebler at 6:13 PM on December 14, 2011


« Older How Fox News is Helping Barack Obama's Re-election...  |  The Nine Greatest Nerd Fears T... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments