Posted on 02/08/2016 5:03:57 PM PST by entropy12
The 100 biggest donors of 2016 cycle have spent $195 million trying to influence the presidential election more than the $155 million spent by the 2 million smallest donors combined, according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data.
The analysis found that the leading beneficiaries of checks from the top 100 donors were Jeb Bushs floundering campaign for the GOP nomination (a supportive super PAC received $49 million from donors on the list), Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton (super PACs dedicated to her raised $38 million from top 100 donors) and Ted Cruzs insurgent GOP campaign ($37 million).
In fact, despite his attacks on his partys donor class and establishment, Cruz, the Texas senator who won last weeks Iowa caucuses, appears to have locked down the support of four of the top six donors the Wilks family of Cisco, Texas (the No. 1 donor on POLITICO’s list), New York hedge fund tycoon Bob Mercer (No. 2), Texas energy investor Toby Neugebauer (No. 4) and Illinois manufacturing moguls Dick and Liz Uihlein (No. 6) but only one other donor on the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Has anyone put a price tag on the millions spend, in kind, by the MSM to promote their views and candidates?
What about the hours of indoctrination given by college professors and high school teachers?
What about Hollywood movies and TV shows? The Music industry?
Cultural warfare is fueled by more that mere cash donations to PACs.
Due to 1st Amendment, we can not control what academia or media can say. But we can control the money in politics, by passing new laws.
We can’t control what they say in acedemia, but we are also not obligated to fund it thru Federal dollars or enable it thru student loan guarantees.
The free market could sort this out.
Correct. Everything the federal government funds ends up being over budget, wasteful and full of fraud. Federals soak up $3,000,000,000,000 every year from the productive economy, and those who work get almost nothing outside of national defense. I have paid $500,000 in federal taxes, and got nothing in return, except military protection..
... or the billionaires can do like Trump, cut out the middleman and run for President themselves.
Most of them, actually almost none of them, have the ability to attract thousands of people to rallies, give 2 hour speeches without teleprompters, and resonate with people. Gates, Buffet, Soros, etc could never do what Trump is doing. Perot was the last Billionaire to make a run of it, but he was short, had a nasal twang, and could only speak with help of lots of charts.
Those billionaires did not have a reality TV show and casinos and women. Trump has been a celebrity for a long time.
The other billionaires that you mentioned are too selfish to run.
The ones who donate millions to campaigns expect quid pro quo in the end, and enjoy wielding power from behind the scenes to not “tarnish” their brand.
Trump is the exception.
I went to a private for-profit technical university. Full disclosure - I did use student loans for about 30% of my total education costs, but paid them back early. I could have gone cash-only if I chose. It would have taken longer, but it was achieve able. And it was an expensive school. At the time, the hourly rate was higher than SMU.
But I will tell you one thing. They did not try to indoctrinate me. They were giving me marketable skills because their placement record is what drove their tuition rates. The better my job unpopular graduation, the more they could justify the tuition.
If we kill off student loans, the frivolous classes leading to unmarketable degrees will be dropped in favor of classes that create value to justify attendance.
Trump is indeed an exception on so many levels.
Prescient post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.