Speaking of the need for citizen participation in our
national politics in his final State of the Union address,
President Obama said, “Our brand of democracy is hard.” A more
accurate characterization might have been: “Our brand of
democracy is cold hard cash.”
Cash, mountains of it, is increasingly the necessary tool for
presidential candidates. Several Powerball jackpots could
already be fueled from the billions of dollars in contributions
in play in election 2016. When considering the present donation
season, however, the devil lies in the details, which is why the
details follow.
With three 2016 debates down and six more scheduled, the two
fundraisers with the most surprising amount in common are Bernie
Sanders and Donald Trump. Neither has billionaire-infused super
PACs, but for vastly different reasons. Bernie has made it clear
billionaires won’t ever hold sway in his court. While Trump…
well, you know, he’s not only a billionaire but has the knack
for getting the sort of attention that even billions can’t buy.
Regarding the rest of the field, each candidate is counting on
the reliability of his or her own arsenal of billionaire
sponsors and corporate nabobs when the you-know-what hits the
fan. And at this point, believe it or not, thanks to the Supreme
Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010 and the super PACs that
arose from it, all the billionaires aren’t even nailed down or
faintly tapped out yet. In fact, some of them are already
preparing to jump ship on their initial candidate of choice or
reserving the really big bucks for closer to game time, when
only two nominees will be duking it out for the White House.
Capturing this drama of the billionaires in new ways are TV
networks eager to profit from the latest eyeball-gluing version
of election politicking and the billions of dollars in ads that
will flood onto screens nationwide between now and November 8th.
As super PACs, billionaires, and behemoth companies press their
influence on what used to be called “our democracy,” the modern
debate system, now a 16-month food fight, has become the
political equivalent of the NFL playoffs. In turn, soaring
ratings numbers, scads of ads, and the party infighting that
helps generate them now translate into billions of new dollars
for media moguls.
For your amusement and mine, this being an all-fun-all-the-time
election campaign, let’s examine the relationships between our
twenty-first-century plutocrats and the contenders who have
raised $5 million or more in individual contributions or through
super PACs and are at 5% or more in composite national polls.
I’ll refrain from using the politically correct phrases that
feed into the illusion of distance between super PACs that
allegedly support candidates’ causes and the candidates
themselves, because in practice there is no distinction.
On the Republican Side:
1. Ted Cruz: Most “God-Fearing” Billionaires
Yes, it’s true the Texas senator “goofed” in neglecting to
disclose to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) a tiny
six-figure loan from Goldman Sachs for his successful 2012
Senate campaign. (After all, what’s half-a-million dollars
between friends, especially when the investment bank that
offered it also employed your wife as well as your finance
chairman?) As The Donald recently told a crowd in Iowa, when it
comes to Ted Cruz, “Goldman Sachs owns him. Remember that,
folks. They own him.”
That aside, with a slew of wealthy Christians in his camp, Cruz
has raised the second largest pile of money among the GOP
candidates. His total of individual and PAC contributions so far
disclosed is a striking $65.2 million. Of that, $14.28 million
has already been spent. Individual contributors kicked in about
a third of that total, or $26.57 million, as of the end of
November 2015 — $11 million from small donors and $15.2 million
from larger ones. His five top donor groups are retirees,
lawyers and law firms, health professionals, miscellaneous
businesses, and securities and investment firms (including, of
course, Goldman Sachs to the tune of $43,575).
Cruz’s Keep the Promise super PAC continues to grow like an
action movie franchise. It includes his original Keep the
Promise PAC augmented by Keep the Promise I, II, and III.
Collectively, the Keep the Promise super PACs amassed $37.83
million. In terms of deploying funds against his adversaries,
they have spent more than 10 times as much fighting Marco Rubio
as battling Hillary Clinton.
His super PAC money divides along family factions reminiscent of
Game of Thrones. A $15 million chunk comes from the billionaire
Texas evangelical fracking moguls, the Wilks Brothers, and $10
million comes from Toby Neugebauer, who is also listed as the
principal officer of the public charity,Matthew 6:20 Foundation;
its motto is “Support the purposes of the Christian Community.”
Cruz’s super PACs also received $11 million from billionaire
Robert Mercer, co-CEO of the New York-based hedge fund
Renaissance Technologies. His contribution is, however, peanuts
compared to the $6.8 billion a Senate subcommittee accused
Renaissance of shielding from the Internal Revenue Service (an
allegation Mercer is still fighting). How’s that for “New York
values”? No wonder Cruz wants to abolish the IRS.
Another of Cruz’s contributors is Bob McNair, the real estate
mogul, billionaire owner of the National Football League’s
Houston Texans, and self-described “Christian steward.”
2. Marco Rubio: Most Diverse Billionaires
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has raised $32.8 million from
individual and PAC contributions and spent about $9 million.
Despite the personal economic struggles he’s experienced and
loves to talk about, he’s not exactly resonating with the
nation’s downtrodden, hence his weak polling figures among the
little people. Billionaires of all sorts, however, seem to love
him.
The bulk of his money comes from super PACs and large
contributors. Small individual contributors donated only $3.3
million to his coffers; larger individual contributions provided
$11.3 million. Goldman Sachs leads his pack of corporate donors
with $79,600.
His main super PAC, Conservative Solutions, has raised $16.6
million, making it the third largest cash cow behind those of
Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. It holds $5 million from Braman
Motorcars, $3 million from the Oracle Corporation, and $2.5
million from Benjamin Leon, Jr., of Besilu Stables. (Those
horses are evidently betting on Rubio.)
He has also amassed a healthy roster of billionaires including
the hedge-fund “vulture of Argentina” Paul Singer who was the
third-ranked conservative donor for the 2014 election cycle.
Last October, in a mass email to supporters about a pre-Iowa
caucus event, Singer promised, “Anyone who raises $10,800 in
new, primary money will receive 5 VIP tickets to a rally and 5
tickets to a private reception with Marco.”
Another of Rubio’s Billionaire Boys is Norman Braman, the
Florida auto dealer and his mentor. These days he’s been forking
over the real money, but back in 2008, he gave Florida
International University $100,000 to fund a Rubio post-Florida
statehouse teaching job. What makes Braman’s relationship
particularly intriguing is his “intense distaste for Jeb Bush,”
Rubio’s former political mentor and now political punching bag.
Hatred, in other words, is paying dividends for Rubio.
Rounding out his top three billionaires is Oracle CEO Larry
Ellison, who ranks third on Forbes’s billionaire list. Last
summer, he threw a $2,700 per person fundraiser in his Woodside,
California, compound for the candidate, complete with a special
dinner for couples that raised $27,000. If Rubio somehow pulls
it out, you can bet he will be the Republican poster boy for
Silicon Valley.
3. Jeb Bush: Most Disappointed Billionaires
Although the one-time Republican front-runner’s star now looks
more like a black hole, the coffers of “Jeb!” are still the ones
to beat. He had raised a total of $128 million by late November
and spent just $19.9 million of it. Essentially none of Jeb’s
money came from the little people (that is, us). Barely 4% of
his contributions were from donations of $200 or less.
In terms of corporate donors, eight of his top 10 contributors
are banks or from the financial industry (including all of the
Big Six banks). Goldman Sachs (which is nothing if not generous
to just about every candidate in sight — except of course,
Bernie) tops his corporate donor chart with $192,500. His super
PACs still kick ass compared to those of the other GOP
contenders. His Right to Rise super PAC raised a hefty $103.2
million and, despite his disappearing act in the polls, it
remains by far the largest in the field.
Corporate donors to Jeb’s Right to Rise PAC include MBF
Healthcare Partners founder and chairman Mike Fernandez, who has
financed a slew of anti-Trump ads, with $3.02 million, and
Rooney Holdings with $2.2 million. Its CEO, L. Francis Rooney
III, was the man George W. Bush appointed ambassador to the
Vatican. Former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg’s current company, CV
Starr (and not, as he has made pains to clarify, he himself),
gave $10 million to Jeb’s super PAC. In the same Fox Business
interviewwhere he stressed that distinction, he also noted, “I’m
sorry he is not living up to expectations, but that’s the
reality of it.” AIG, by the way, received $182 billion in
bailout money under Jeb’s brother, W.
4. Ben Carson: No Love For Billionaires
Ben Carson is running a pretty expensive campaign, which doesn’t
reflect well on his possible future handling of the economy
(though, as he sinks toward irrelevance in the polls, it seems
as if his moment to handle anything may have passed). Having
raised $38.7 million, he’s spent $26.4 million of it. His
campaign received 63% of its contributions from small donors,
which leaves it third behind Bernie and Trump on that score,
according to FEC filings from October 2015.
His main super PACs, grouped under the title “the 2016
Committee,” raised just $3.8 million, with rich retired people
providing the bulk of it. Another PAC, Our Children’s Future,
didn’t collect anything, despite its pledge to turn “Carson’s
outside militia into an organized army.”
But billionaires aren’t Carson’s cup of tea. As he said last
October, “I have not gone out licking the boots of billionaires
and special-interest groups. I’m not getting into bed with
them.”
Carson recently dropped into fourth place in the
RealClearPolitics composite poll for election 2016 with his team
in chaos. His campaign manager, Barry Bennett, quit. His finance
chairman, Dean Parke, resignedamid escalating criticism over his
spending practices and his $20,000 a month salary. As the rising
outsider candidate, Carson once had an opportunity to offer a
fresh voice on campaign finance reform. Instead, his campaign
learned the hard way that being in the Republican hot seat
without a Rolodex of billionaires can be hell on Earth.
5. Chris Christie: Most Sketchy Billionaires
For someone polling so low, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
has amassed startling amounts of dosh. His campaign
contributions stand at $18.6 million, of which he has spent $5.7
million. Real people don’t care for him. Christie has received
the least number of small contributions in either party, a
bargain basement 3% of his total.
On the other hand, his super PAC, America Leads, raised $11
million, including $4.3 million from the securities and
investment industry. His top corporate donors at $1 million each
include Point 72 Asset Management, theSteven and Alexandra Cohen
Foundation, and Winnecup Gamble Ranch, run by billionaire Paul
Fireman, chairman of Fireman Capital Partners and founder and
former chairman of Reebok International Ltd.
Steven Cohen, worth about $12 billion and on the Christie
campaign’s national finance team, founded Point 72 Asset
Management after being forced to shut down SAC Capital, his
former hedge-fund company, due to insider-trading charges. SAC
had to pay $1.2 billion to settle.
Christie’s other helpful billionaire is Ken Langone, co-founder
of Home Depot. But Langone, as he told the National Journal, is
not writing a $10 million check. Instead, he says, his preferred
method of subsidizing politicians is getting “a lot of people to
write checks, and get them to get people to write checks, and
hopefully result in a helluva lot more than $10 million.” In
other words, Langone offers his ultra-wealthy network, not
himself.
6. Donald Trump: I Am A Billionaire
Trump’s campaign has received approximately $5.8 million in
individual contributions and spent about the same amount. Though
not much compared to the other Republican contenders, it’s
noteworthy that 70% of Trump’s contributions come from small
individual donors (the highest percentage among GOP candidates).
It’s a figure that suggests it might not pay to underestimate
Trump’s grassroots support, especially since he’s getting
significant amounts of money from people who know he doesn’t
need it.
Last July, a Make America Great Again super PAC emerged, but it
shut downin October to honor Trump’s no super PAC claim. For
Trump, dealing with super PAC agendas would be a hassle unworthy
of his time and ego. (He is, after all, the best billionaire:
trust him.) Besides, with endorsements from luminaries like
former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and a command of TV ratings
that’s beyond compare, who needs a super PAC or even his own
money, of which he’s so far spent remarkably little?
On The Democratic Side:
1. Hillary Clinton: A Dynasty of Billionaires
Hillary and Bill Clinton earned a phenomenal $139 million for
themselves between 2007 and 2014, chiefly from writing books and
speaking to various high-paying Wall Street and international
corporations. Between 2013 and 2015, Hillary Clinton gave 12
speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other
financial corporations, pocketing a whopping $2,935,000. And
she’s used that obvious money-raising skill to turn her campaign
into a fundraising machine.
As of October 16, 2015, she had pocketed $97.87 million from
individual and PAC contributions. And she sure knows how to
spend it, too. Nearly half of that sum, or $49.8 million — more
than triple the amount of any other candidate — has already gone
to campaign expenses.
Small individual contributions made up only 17% of Hillary’s
total; 81% came from large individual contributions. Much like
her forced folksiness in the early days of her campaign when she
was snapped eating a burrito bowl at a Chipotle in her first
major meet-the-folks venture in Ohio, those figures reveal a
certain lack of savoir faire when it comes to the struggling
classes.
Still, despite her speaking tour up and down Wall Street and the
fact that fourof the top six Wall Street banks feature among her
top 10 career contributors, they’ve been holding back so far in
this election cycle (or perhaps donating to the GOP instead).
After all, campaign 2008 was a bust for her and nobody likes to
be on the losing side twice.
Her largest super PAC, Priorities USA Action, nonetheless raised
$15.7 million, including $4.6 million from the entertainment
industry and $3.1 million from securities and investment. The
Saban Capital Group and DreamWorks kicked in $2 million each.
Hillary has recently tried to distance herself from a
well-deserved reputation for being close to Wall Street, despite
the mega-speaking fees she’s garnered from Goldman Sachs among
others, not to speak of the fact that five of the Big Six banks
gave money to the Clinton Foundation. She now claims that her
“Wall Street plan” is stricter than Bernie Sanders’s. (It isn’t.
He’s advocating to break up the big banks via a
twenty-first-century version of the Glass-Steagall Act that Bill
Clinton buried in his presidency.) To top it off, she scheduled
an elite fundraiser at the $17 billion “alternative investment”
firm Franklin Square Capital Partners four days before the Iowa
Caucus. So much for leopards changing spots.
You won’t be surprised to learn that Hillary has billionaires
galore in her corner, all of whom backed her hubby through the
years. Chief among them is media magnate Haim Saban who gave her
super PAC $2 million. George Soros, the hedge-fund mogul,
contributed $2.02 million. DreamWorks Animation chief executive
Jeffrey Katzenberg gave $1 million. And the list goes on.
2. Bernie Sanders: No Billionaires Allowed
Bernie Sanders has stuck to his word, running a campaign sans
billionaires. As of October 2015, he had raised an impressive
$41.5 million and spent about $14.5 million of it.
None of his top corporate donors are Wall Street banks. What’s
more, a record 77% of his contributions came from small
individual donors, a number that seems only destined to grow as
his legions of enthusiasts vote with their personal checkbooks.
According to a Sanders campaign press release as the year began,
another $33 million came in during the last three months of
2015: “The tally for the year-end quarter pushed his total
raised last year to $73 million from more than 1 million
individuals who made a record 2.5 million donations.” That
number broke the 2011 record set by President Obama’s reelection
committee by 300,000 donations, and evidence suggests Sanders’s
individual contributors aren’t faintly tapped out. After recent
attacks on his single-payer healthcare plan by the Clinton camp,
he raised $1.4 million in a single day.
It would, of course, be an irony of ironies if what has been a
billionaire’s playground since the Citizens United decision
became, in November, a billionaire’s graveyard with literally
billions of plutocratic dollars interred in a grave marked: here
lies campaign 2016.
The Media and Debates
And talking about billions, in some sense the true political and
financial playground of this era has clearly become the
television set with a record $6 billion in political ads slated
to flood America’s screen lives before next November 8th. Add to
that the staggering rates that media companies have been getting
for ad slots on TV’s latest reality extravaganza — those
“debates” that began in mid-2015 and look as if they’ll never
end. They have sometimes pulled in National Football
League-sized audiences and represent an entertainment and profit
spectacle of the highest order.
So here’s a little rundown on those debates thus far, winners
and losers (and I’m not even thinking of the candidates, though
Donald Trump would obviously lead the list of winners so far —
just ask him). In those ratings extravaganzas, especially the
Republican ones, the lack of media questions on campaign finance
reform and on the influence of billionaires is striking — and
little wonder, under the money-making circumstances.
The GOP Show
The kick-off August 6th GOP debate in Cleveland, Ohio, was a Fox
News triumph. Bringing in 24 million viewers, it was the
highest-rated primary debate in TV history. The follow-up at the
Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on September 16th,
hosted by CNN and Salem Radio, grabbed another 23.1 million
viewers, making it the most-watched program in CNN’s history.
(Trump naturally took credit for that.) CNN charged up to
$200,000for a 30-second spot. (An average prime-time spot on CNN
usually goes for $5,000.) The third debate, hosted by CNBC,
attracted 14 million viewers, a record for CNBC, which was by
then charging advertisers $250,000 or more for 30-second spots.
Fox Business News and the Wall Street Journal hosted the next
round on November 10th: 13.5 million viewers and (ho-hum) a Fox
Business News record. For that one, $175,000 bought you a
30-second commercial slot.
The fifth and final debate of 2015 on December 15th in Las
Vegas, again hosted by CNN and Salem Radio, lassoed 18 million
viewers. As 2016 started, debate fatigue finally seemed to be
setting in. The first debate on January 14th in North
Charleston, South Carolina, scored a mere 11 million viewers for
Fox Business News. When it came to the second debate (and the
last before the Iowa caucuses) on January 28th, The Donald
decided not to grace it with his presence because he didn’t
think Fox News had treated him nicely enough and because he
loathes its host Megyn Kelly.
The Democratic Debates
Relative to the GOP debate ad-money mania, CNN charged a bargain
half-off, or $100,000, for a 30-second ad during one of the
Democratic debates. Let’s face it, lacking a reality TV star at
center stage, the Democrats and associated advertisers generally
fared less well. Their first debate on October 13th in Las
Vegas, hosted by CNN and Facebook, averaged a respectable 15.3
million viewers, but the next one in Des Moines, Iowa, overseen
by CBS and the Des Moines Register, sank to just 8.6 million
viewers. Debate number three in Manchester, New Hampshire,
hosted by ABC and WMUR, was rumored to have been buried by the
Democratic National Committee (evidently trying to do Hillary a
favor) on the Saturday night before Christmas. Not surprisingly,
it brought in only 7.85 million viewers.
The fourth Democratic debate on NBC on January 17th (streamed
live on YouTube) featured the intensifying battle between an
energized Bernie and a spooked Hillary. It garnered 10.2 million
TV viewers and another 2.3 million YouTube viewers, even though
it, too, had been buried — on the Sunday night before Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day. In comparison, 60 Minutes on rival network
CBS nabbed 20.3 million viewers.
The Upshot
So what gives? In this election season, it’s clear that these
skirmishes involving the ultra-wealthy and their piles of cash
are transforming modern American politics into a form of
theater. And the correlation between big money and big drama
seems destined only to rise. The media needs to fill its coffers
between now and election day and the competition among
billionaires has something of a horse-betting quality to it.
Once upon a time, candidates drummed up interest in their
policies; now, their policies, such as they are, have been
condensed into so many buzzwords and phrases, while money and
glitz are the main currencies attracting attention.
That said, it could all go awry for the money-class and wouldn’t
that just be satisfying to witness — the irony of an election
won not by, but despite, all those billionaires and corporate
patrons.
Will Bernie’s citizens beat Hillary’s billionaires? Will Trump
go billion to billion with fellow New York billionaire Michael
Bloomberg? Will Cruz’s prayers be answered? Will Rubio score a
12th round knockout of Cruz and Trump? Does Jeb Bush even exist?
And to bring up a question few are likely to ask: What do the
American people and our former democratic republic stand to lose
(or gain) from this spectacle? All this and more (and more and
more money) will be revealed later this year. |