|
 Campaign finance watchdog groups fear heavy spending by these
ultra-rich Americans will warp the election - already expected to be
the most money-soaked in history. The idea that billionaires can buy
elections has taken root in the public imagination.
Those billionaires are now seeing small, early signs of a pushback.
Whether these are the beginning of a new trend is far too soon to
say, but polls show there is wider discontent about the perceived
influence of big money in U.S. politics and a growing gulf between
the country's very rich and very poor.
These nascent rumblings - along with evidence that the super-rich
are inefficient political spenders - raise questions about how
effective billionaires will be in the 2016 elections.
Some voters in Philadelphia, for example, were turned off by the
billionaires backing a top candidate in the city's May 19 mayoral
race. And a Silicon Valley startup, Crowdpac, is hoping to bank on
public ire against big political spenders to attract small donations
to its new for-profit election campaign crowdfunding platform.
"There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy
elections and that makes the task of winning all the more
difficult," said Darrell West, the author of "Billionaires:
Reflections on the Upper Crust," and the director of governance
studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.
 Potential big donors dispute the notion they are trying to buy
elections and say they are simply using their positions to try to
influence the future of the country in a positive way.
"I do believe – and I’ve told my kids this - that I can do more for
them by giving money to the right presidential candidate in 2016
than by leaving them double that amount in my will," said David
Walsh, a retired investor living in Jackson, Wyoming, who would not
disclose his net worth but has given several multi-million dollar
gifts to charitable causes and said he planned to donate heavily to
candidates in 2016.
Miami car dealership mogul Norman Braman has been outspoken about
backing his longtime protege Rubio; financial investor Foster Friess
was in the audience cheering Santorum on when he announced his
presidential bid two weeks ago; and Bob Mercer, the founder of a New
York hedge fund, has been identified as supporting Cruz. The
billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have publicly
vowed to spend nearly $900 million influencing races in 2016.
PHILADELPHIA STORY
Amid the populist outcry against CEO pay and income inequality there
may be some risks in candidates being so publicly linked to the
extremely rich.
In Philadelphia, Anthony Hardy Williams was considered the favorite
for the city's next mayor. He won support from three billionaires,
Joel Greenberg, Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik, founders of the
Susquehanna International Group, a global financial firm
headquartered in a Philadelphia suburb. The three backed Williams,
encouraging voters to support his views on a hot-button education
policy issue.
They spent nearly $7 million on television ads promoting Williams.
In response, unions and other community groups, who opposed
Williams's education platform, coalesced around another candidate,
Jim Kenney. One of the groups, Action United, organized a march in
front of SIG's offices with placards that said, "Stop billionaires
from buying our next mayor!"
"I would have looked seriously at Williams if not for the money,"
said JoAnn Seaver, 85, a retired teacher who voted for Kenney. She
was one of several Philadelphia voters Reuters interviewed on
election day who said Williams' billionaire backers were a turnoff.
"You don't think that money should govern people who are elected,
but what do you do, just let the billionaires take over?"
A spokesman for Williams declined to comment. Through a spokesman,
the three billionaires declined to comment.
[to top of second column] |
FIGHTING BACK
Crowdpac, an online political fundraising platform that works like
Kickstarter - an online tool that lets entrepreneurs gather funding
for new projects through small donations - sees fighting
billionaires as part of its business model. Mason Harrison, the
site's political director, says Crowdpac wants to get more
middle-class people involved in politics by hosting smaller donation
drives for candidates.
"We have a lack of money from small donors in American politics, and
if we have more people involved in the political process we can make
great strides in terms of diluting the influence from special
interests," he said.
A veteran of Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign,
Harrison is not the typical liberal voice decrying money in
politics. But Crowdpac's Twitter tagline sounds very similar to the
calls from non-profit watchdog groups to level the political playing
field. It reads: "Together we can beat the big donors."
BIG MONEY, NOT SMART MONEY
Inefficiency could also dampen the effects of billionaires'
political spending. (Graphic: http://reut.rs/1Rw4GHF)
"When you have political amateurs or novices with a strong issue or
ideological position in which they have intense belief and are
willing to put their money behind it, the money itself is no
guarantee of victory," said Michael Traugott, a political science
professor at the University of Michigan who studies the influence of
money on political races.
Studies of the 2012 and 2014 elections by the Sunlight Foundation, a
Washington-based non-profit that tracks political spending, show
most groups backed by billionaires had less success swaying election
outcomes than groups controlled by trade organizations or
professional political strategists. The Sunlight study does not
offer any explanation for this difference.
Former hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who backed Democrats through
his Nextgen Climate Action Committee, spent $79 million in the 2014
congressional elections, $17.9 million of which was directed toward
influencing specific races. Sunlight found Steyer had a 32 percent
success rate on the $17.9 million spent.
For some, failure was total. Evidence from news reports shows that
casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent more than $100 million in 2012
in donations to trade groups, political action committees and
candidates, only to watch virtually all his chosen candidates –
including presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Romney – lose.
Other groups have seen more success. The Kochs' Americans for
Prosperity saw a 95 percent success rate in 2014.
But its string of victories isn't flawless. It ran negative TV ads
against Ethan Berkowitz, a candidate in this year's mayoral race in
Anchorage, Alaska. Local strategists said the ads only increased
Berkowitz's name recognition.
Jeremy Price, the state director for Americans for Prosperity in
Alaska, said the ads were meant to show Berkowitz's record on
spending, highlighting an issue rather than a candidate.
Berkowitz won the race.
(Reporting By Emily Flitter, editing by Ross Colvin)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
