Campaign fundraising has always relied on political action committees (PACS). Before 2010, the amount of money that an individual (or individual entity) could donate was limited, with the specific limit depending on whether the money was going to an election or political party.
In 2010, a pair of judicial decisions created "independent-expenditure only committees," better known as the super PAC. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, by the Supreme Court, lifted spending limits. Based off this decision, the Speechnow v. FEC ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court dispensed with contribution limits. While the committees cannot coordinate directly with candidates, they are allowed to mount the kind of direct, aggressive attacks previously forbidden. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) became law, aimed towards reducing the effect of unregulated 'soft money' in electioneering--these judicial decisions specifically overturned pieces of this law.
A few days ago, on October 15th, candidates had to announce their third quarter fundraising totals. (The third quarter runs from July through September.) President Obama has raised a reported $89 million, with this quarter being his largest ever in a non-election year, far exceeding his numbers in the 2007-2008 election. His numbers, which combine money given to the Democratic National Committee and his own campaign, also far exceed any of the Republican candidates. Mitt Romney has raised $14.2 million in the third quarter and a total of $32 million, although he has not yet contributed any personal funds to his campaign. In 2008, he donated $40 million dollars to himself. Rick Perry narrowly beat him this past fiscal quarter, raising $17 million dollars.
Mitt Romney is the candidate who has raised the most money from Wall Street, taking in $7.5 million to President Obama's $3.9 million. Rick Perry raised $2 million. Protests are spreading across the country, inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Their core issue is corporate money influencing politics.
But since this is 2012, the era of the super PAC, and since these amounts are only what is directly associated with each candidate, they tell only a small part of the story. Each candidate has a super PAC, and a donor who has given the maximum to the official campaign can still give unlimited money.
While President Obama appears in the lead in the fundraising game, the super PAC associated with his campaign, Priorities USA, has raised $3.2 million, compared to the over $12 million raised by a group that supports Mitt Romney, Restore our Future. (It is worth noting that Priorities USA has a sister 501(c)4 group called Priorities USA Action that does not need to disclose its finances.)
Both Priorities USA and Restore our Future have relied on big donations from prominent supporters. Producer Jeffrey Katzenberg gave $2 million to Priorities USA, and Restore our Future received four $1 million donations, including one from a former Romney co-worker at Bain Capital who set up a limited liability corporation to hide his contributions.
Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul all have a super PAC supporting them as well. (Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann each have two.) All of these organizations have been actively aggressive in trashing their opponents, including attacking Rick Perry for vaccinating young girls for HPV.
Perry's organization, Make Us Great Again, plans to raise $55 million.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) became law, aimed towards reducing the effect of unregulated 'soft money' in electioneering. Eight years later, campaign finance is more unregulated than ever. The super PAC played an enormous role in the 2010 midterm elections, and it is clear that it will play a similar role in the Presidential elections as well.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 16
Herman Cain is the anti-Wall Street, Main Street candidate. Liberals are trying to ingore this but its true.
How can you say that Cain is anti-Wall Street? Whether you support the Occupy Wall Street movements or not, all you need to do is look at his comments about the protests to see that he is not anti-Wall Street at all.
Wake up from your Obama-dream and face REAL reality.
Herman Cain's presidency is a fantasy. He admits to having no interest in foreign policy whatsoever. He's erratic and quick tempered. He gleefully insults whole nations ("Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan"), races ("black voters are brainwashed") and religions ("muslims can't be trusted"). The guy is a joke. The complete downfall of America isn't good for anyone, least of all the 1%.
BTW, your logic is embarrassing. Romney has more money from Wall Street than Cain therefore Cain is anti-Wall Street? Awful. I bet you didn't do very well in school.
By Michael Beckel on July 22, 2011 10:05 AM
President Barack Obama has relied more on well-connected Wall Street figures to fund his re-election than he did four years ago when he campaigned as an outsider and an underdog.
One-third of the money Obama's elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector, according to a new Center for Responsive Politics analysis.
Individuals who work in the finance, insurance and real estate sector are responsible for raising at least $11.8 million for Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to the Center's research. All of Obama's bundlers have raised a minimum of $34.95 million, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported.
During his entire 2008 presidential bid, bundlers who worked in the finance, insurance and real estate sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million, according to the Center's research. That's about 21 percent of the $76.5 million estimated minimum amount that these top fund-raisers brought in for Obama's presidential campaign.
An exact dollar amounts for how much cash these individuals raised ahead of the 2008 election or during the past few months is not known because the Obama campaign provided only broad ranges of how much money each bundler collected.
A precise figure, however, is known for how much the Obama campaign and the DNC raised during the second quarter of the year: $86 million. Thus, at least $1 out of every $8 that the DNC and Obama campaign raised came thanks to a bundler connected to the finance, insurance and real estate industry.
Notably, candidates can only raise a few thousand dollars per individual donor, while party committees like the DNC can raise more than $30,000 per person -- making it far easier for a bundler to collect bigger checks when raising money for both a candidate and a party committee.
The Center has identified 80 bundlers -- out of 244 whose names were released by the Obama campaign last week -- who are part of the financial sector. Forty-four specifically work for the securities and investment industry.
Nine of these 80 bundlers have already raised more than $500,000 -- the top dollar range given by the Obama campaign. Four of them -- former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, Evercore Partners executive Charles Myers, Greenstreet Real Estate Partners CEO Steven Green and Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JPMorgan -- did not bundle money for Obama's 2008 campaign.
The other five finance-related top-tier Obama bundlers, who are bundling for him again this campaign, are:
•Mark and Nancy Gilbert, of Barclays, who worked together to raise money as a couple
•Blair Effron, of Centerview Partners
•Kirk Rudy, of Endeavor Real Estate
•Orin Kramer, of Boston Provident
•John Emerson, of Capital Group Companies
In all, only 27 bundlers have so far raised at least $500,000 for Obama and the DNC.
Meanwhile, employees of law firms and lobbying shops are responsible for at least $6.9 million so far this year, money which has gone to the Obama re-elect campaign and the DNC.
During Obama's presidential bid four years ago, individuals in this economic sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million -- with the legal industry being the No. 1 industry among all of Obama's bundlers.
This year, 54 individuals in the legal industry have bundled a minimum of $6.1 million. Three individuals, meanwhile, who work for lobbying firms, have collectively bundled a minimum of $800,000.
None of Obama's bundlers are active lobbyists. The same is not true for at least one of Obama's potential Republican opponents: Mitt Romney had six registered lobbyists bundle money for him during the second quarter of the year. These individuals raised $517,450 for Romney's campaign, as OpenSecrets Blog previously reported.
Wall Street money will also likely play a significant role in Romney's campaign, or that of most any Republican who seeks to challenge Obama. The financial sector is traditionally a deep pool of money for politicians on both side of the aisle who seek it. During the 2008 election cycle alone, Republican and Democratic politicians raised a combined $500 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, the Center's research shows.
Since he began running for president in 2007, Obama has pledged to not accept money from registered, federal lobbyists. But that hasn't stopped him from taking money from former lobbyists -- or having former lobbyists serve as top fund-raisers for him.
Seven of his bundlers this year are former lobbyists, who, collectively, have raised a minimum of $1.35 million for Obama and the DNC.
These seven individuals are:
•Michael Kempner, of MWW Group, who has raised at least $500,000
•Tim Broas, of Winston & Strawn, who has raised between $200,000 and $500,000
•Michael Cioffi, of Blank Rome LLP, who has raised between $200,000 and $500,000
•Tom Wheeler, of Core Capital Partners, who has raised between $200,000 and $500,000
•Scott Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, who has raised between $100,000 and $200,000
•Mel Levine, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who has raised between $100,000 and $200,000
•Frank Clark of Exelon Corp., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000
Kempner, Broas, Wheeler, Harris and Clark all bundled money for Obama four years ago, while Cioffi and Levine are new bundlers for Obama."
SOURCE
Not what John is trying to paint a picture of - but rather the facts as reported.
Thank you very much!!!
I (John) stand by everything I ever post or respond to.
It is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes that Obama is as much tied to BIG MONEY, BIG BUSINESS, FINANCIAL SECTOR as any other politician in the past 20-30 years - if NOT more. To attempt to paint his connection as anything else is the dishonesty of the situation.
It's NOT Mom & Pop paying $35k+ to attend his Warren Buffet [et al] Dinners, it's NOT the $5 dollar donations from the unemployed single mom that is getting Obama to $70+ million.
But you just go right along and believe whatever the "good party" tells you is truth - I'm sure that will work well for you.
Romney number of individual Donors as of 10/14: 55,000
And Romney has raised FAR more than Obama from Wall Street donors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?_r=3
Wow, what do you think of that John? Oh that's right you don't care about any of those kind of facts huh John? I don't know what's worse: If you really believe you're impartial or not. Pretty sad either way.
Not really:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/obama-has-actually-raised-more-money-wall-street-romney/43892/
Please forgive me for breaking into your debate with John H. and mike p., but I felt compeled to correct/challenge your statement.
It would be my challenge that according to GOP/RNC rules, "No" candidate during the Republican primary is entitled to receive, nor is allotted any RNC funds from the Party coffers.
That would be providing a specific candidate with an unfair advantage in for that candidates' primary campaign. Such fund distribution of RNC funds to one specific candidate, while ignoring all other primary candidates would not only destroy the GOP, but would possibly result in a lawsuit by one or more of the non allotted fund candidates against the RNC which oversees the Party funds and/or possibly against the GOP it's self.
Primary candidate's are required to raise all campaign/election funds via their established campaign. The GOP/RNC assumes no part in assisting any candidate in such fund raising.
"Only" the winner of the Republican primary election system will be afforded funds from the RNC war chest coffers to be used for/during the presidential election process it's self..
At this point in the election cycle, any dessimination in donations received from Wall Street and/or corporate America by Pres. Obamas' campaign, in comparison to whomever becomes the Republican presidential candidate has no factual nor substantial meaning.
I say this because, a large portion of any 2012 Republican primary candidates contributions will be expended during the year long primaries. Thus, the Republican nominee will be forced to begin finding new contributions to replace those expended campaign funds for the upcoming presidential election campaign.
Whereas, any and all contributions received by President Obamas' campaign will be sitting in a bank and drawing interest. To date, reportedly his campaign has somewhere around $250 million in contributions and growing exponentially.
Party primaries always provide the incumbent/seated president with this advantage over his yet to be chosen opponent. Although the challenging Partys' candidate, will have their partys' funds to rely upon once the primaries are over, he/she will still be somewhat at a disadvantge. Inasmuch, as most individual contributors are by that time unable to make additional contributions and corporate contributors have already committed the greater portion of their allotted monies to various candidates during the primaries. This is why corporations attempt to hedge the bet by contributing to the campaigns of several front runners during a primary, with the most attractive getting the larger share.