# Does anyone oppose big money in politics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693 "2015-03-22T16:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/1 "2015-03-22T16:58:09Z")
Over [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=752275), a doper trotted out the claim that “corporations and their owners” support the Republican Party with big money donations. In fact, corporations support both the Democratic and Republican parties with big money donations. I offered [two](http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/democrats-and-republicans-sharing-b/) [links](http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/apr/16/jim-demint/not-many-times-more-democrats-sometimes-do-raise-m/) on the matter. The first looks at donations to the governors associations in the 2010 cycle. The two parties both got similar amounts of money from top donors. The Republicans got a slightly larger percentage of their money from corporations (70% vs 59%), but the Democrats are obviously not hesitant about receiving from corporations. The second link looks at total business contributions for the past five cycles. Democrats got the most money from business in two of those five cycles; Republicans in the other three. If we instead [look at individual donors](http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php), we find that the two top donors in the past cycle were Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, both billionaires. Bloomberg gave 95% of his money to Democratic candidates. Not to be outdone, Steyer gave 100% of his contributions to Democrats. George Soros, another financial zillionaire, is on the list as well. He’s famous for his 8-figure contributions to groups such as [moveon.org](http://moveon.org). The list of the top 100 donors splits exactly evenly between those favoring Democrats and Republicans. Leaders of the Democratic Party are not shy about raking in cash. Barack Obama famously shattered fundraising records in 2008, then did it again in 2012. Last fall, as he attacked Republicans for taking money from the rich, he also held a fundraiser at the home of a Wall Street billionaire named [Rich Richman](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785161/Obama-slams-GOP-party-billionaires-attends-32k-head-fundraiser-hosted-billionaire-property-tycoon-named-Rich-Richman.html). Cost of attendance at this event was $32,000; costs for other Obama fundraisers have been even higher. So there’s plainly no reason to believe that corporations and the super-rich overwhelming prefer Republicans. What’s odd is that those who make their careers whining about big money in politics only seem to mention the big money that goes to Republicans. The Koch brothers are frequent targets, while Thomas Friedman had a whole [column last week railing against Sheldon Adelson](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-is-it-sheldons-world.html?_r=0), the latest of many. Oddly, I don’t recall ever seeing Friedman go on the attack against Steyer or Bloomberg or anyone else who donates big to the Democrats. One might almost suspect that Friedman and his ilk are not generally upset about big money in politics. They’re upset when big money goes to the Republican Party and conservative causes. When big money goes to the Democratic Party and liberal causes, they’re instead quite sanguine. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/2 "2015-03-22T17:15:36Z")
Of course everyone is going to be more upset with money going to the other side, but people who want to remove big money from politics want to remove it from BOTH sides. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/3 "2015-03-22T17:24:10Z")
“Does anyone oppose big money in politics?” Yes. It even seems that you’re aware of this, since there’s evidence right in your post, but you failed to clearly state a more nuanced point for debate in it. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/4 "2015-03-22T17:47:10Z")
There’s an organization called [Wolf-PAC](http://www.wolf-pac.com/) that opposes big money in politics. I believe they are sincere about this (full disclosure: I’m a member): > [@](#): > > To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution. There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our Federal Government (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendments convention of the states. > > Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our Federal Government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. So far, four states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to address the corrupting influence of money in politics. Vermont, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. They need 34 to reach their goal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/5 "2015-03-22T17:56:13Z")
I have to guess that **ITR Champion** was not informed properly by his sources about who is opposing big money in politics, and that is most of the American people. > **[Majority of Americans Want Money Out of Politics | BillMoyers.com](https://billmoyers.com/2014/11/21/majority-americans-want-money-politics/)** > > Research shows that Americans across party lines think it's high time to reform our campaign finance system. > [@](#): > > Majority of Americans Want Money Out of Politics > > A survey conducted in July found that a majority of Americans from across the political spectrum oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that opened the floodgates to endless campaign spending. And that was before the 2014 elections became the most expensive midterm elections ever, with at least $3.7 billion spent on Congressional races (that doesn’t count state, local and judicial elections). > > The research, commissioned by Public Citizen, surveyed likely 2014 voters from the two main political parties, as well as independents. > > As the chart below shows, 61 percent of those polled oppose Citizens United (with 51 percent strongly opposed), the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. Democrats, Republicans and independents show very similar opposition rates at 61, 58 and 62 percent, respectively. Also, special interest lobbying and election spending was viewed especially negatively, with 76 percent of Democrats, 79 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independents having an unfavorable opinion of its impact on our politics. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/6 "2015-03-22T19:09:41Z")
Dem pols accepting the big money does not mean they’re not against it. After all, they have to play the game as it is now, and are not obliged to unilaterally disarm. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/7 "2015-03-22T19:37:22Z")
I would ask OP: _In recent decades do you think the GOP has moved to the right or to the left? In recent decades do you think the Democrats have moved to the right or to the left?_ If you answer correctly (“right”, “right”) you may get a clue why rationalists oppose money-dominated politics. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/8 "2015-03-22T20:16:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I would ask OP: > _In recent decades do you think the GOP has moved to the right or to the left? > In recent decades do you think the Democrats have moved to the right or to the left?_ > If you answer correctly (“right”, “right”) you may get a clue why rationalists oppose money-dominated politics. Can you show your work as to how you got the “correct” answers? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/9 "2015-03-22T20:31:22Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Of course everyone is going to be more upset with money going to the other side, but people who want to remove big money from politics want to remove it from BOTH sides. I can find any number of sources who complain about big money, but whose complaints are directed at just one side. The New York Times only blasts big donations to the Republicans, while the National Review prefers to attack big donations to the Democrats. I’m unaware of any pundit who actually seems equally concerned about the corrupting influence of big money on both parties. It’s easy to make blanket condemnations of big money, while quietly ignoring the big money that goes to the side one likes best. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/10 "2015-03-22T20:40:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you show your work as to how you got the “correct” answers? Ronald Reagan would not have a prayer at getting nominated much less elected by the Republican party today. That is a distinct move to the right. Democrats would probably elect Ronald Reagan today. That is a distinct move to the right. > [@](#): > > The Democrats, as far as I can see, have moved from their 40-yard-line to midfield, or their opponents’ 45. As recently as the Clinton presidency, Democrats actively pushed for gun control, defence budgets under 3% of GDP, banning oil exploration off America’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a public option or single-payer solution to universal health insurance, and…well, Clinton-era progressive income-tax rates. Today these positions have all been abandoned. And we’re talking about positions held under Bill Clinton, a “third way” leader who himself moved Democratic ideology dramatically to the right, the guy responsible for “ending welfare as we know it”. Since then, Democrats have moved much further yet to the right, in the fruitless search for a compromise with a Republican Party that sees compromise itself as fundamentally evil. The obvious example is that the Democrats in 2010 literally passed the universal health-insurance reform that had been proposed by the GOP opposition in the Clinton administration, only to find today’s GOP vilifying it as a form of Leninist socialist totalitarianism. > > SOURCE: [Democrats Have Moved to the Right, Not the Left – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/democrats-have-moved-right-not-left) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/11 "2015-03-22T20:50:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Ronald Reagan would not have a prayer at getting nominated much less elected by the Republican party today. That is a distinct move to the right. People like to say that, but it’s ridiculous. Romney had a less conservative background as a Republican than RR had, and yet he was able to overcome that and get the nomination. Be that as it may, you can’t prove something based on a hypothetical. And what does it mean to be “elected by the Republican Party” apart from being nominated? > [@](#): > > Democrats would probably elect Ronald Reagan today. That is a distinct move to the right. Debating is hard! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/12 "2015-03-22T20:58:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I can find any number of sources who complain about big money, but whose complaints are directed at just one side. The New York Times only blasts big donations to the Republicans, while the National Review prefers to attack big donations to the Democrats. I’m unaware of any pundit who actually seems equally concerned about the corrupting influence of big money on both parties. It’s easy to make blanket condemnations of big money, while quietly ignoring the big money that goes to the side one likes best. Does [Pope Francis](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/11/3632295/pope-francis-attacks-corrupting-influence-money-elections/) count as nonpartisan? > [@](#): > > His Holiness Pope Francis called upon candidates in his home nation of Argentina to hold a “free, unfinanced campaign” during a question and answer session with low-income youth from Buenos Aires. The Pope also warned that campaign donations lead elected officials to act against the interests of the people. “In the financing of electoral campaigns, many interests get into the mix,” according to Francis, “and then they send you the bill.” > > The Pope’s comments place him at odds with five other very prominent Catholics — the five justices who joined the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/13 "2015-03-22T21:12:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > People like to say that, but it’s ridiculous. Romney had a less conservative background as a Republican than RR had, and yet he was able to overcome that and get the nomination. Be that as it may, you can’t prove something based on a hypothetical. What proof will you accept? The question demands hypotheticals and guessing. We can see, as I listed, that democrats have abandoned distinctly liberal positions and moved right. As far as Ronald Reagan getting elected here is some support for that idea (unfortunately it is a miserably formatted site that makes you click to change pages unnecessarily): > [@](#): > > Former Senate Majority Leader and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole slammed the state of the Republican Party over the weekend, telling Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that the GOP should be “closed for repairs” and lamenting that some of the most famous Republicans would have no chance at becoming party leaders in the Tea Party era. > > “I doubt [I could fit in with the modern party],” Dole said. “Reagan wouldn’t have made it, certainly Nixon wouldn’t have made it, because he had ideas. We might have made it, but I doubt it.” > > While Dole’s criticism of his party’s current platform could be debated, his assertion that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have prospered in the current political climate is pretty much unassailable. Here are five reasons that Republicans’ favorite Republican could never fit in with today’s party: > > SOURCE: [5 Reasons Ronald Reagan Couldn’t Make It In Today’s GOP - National Memo](http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-reasons-ronald-reagan-couldnt-make-it-in-todays-gop/) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/14 "2015-03-22T21:17:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What proof will you accept? The question demands hypotheticals and guessing. How about Party Platform? Or legislation proposed/passed? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/15 "2015-03-22T21:27:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you show your work as to how you got the “correct” answers? Maybe he read [this article.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/30/americans-are-more-conservative-than-they-have-been-in-decades/) Or [this one](http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/1162/). Or [this book](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/conservatism-and-american-political-development-9780195373929?cc=ca&lang=en&#) (see “Description” section). > [@John\_Mace](#): > > How about Party Platform? Or legislation proposed/passed? How about the fact that a **Republican** president once [proposed health care reform](http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/nixon_proposed_todays_affordable_care_act_partner/) much like the ACA? How about the fact that a **Republican** president [once established important federal agencies](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575&st=environmental+protection+agency&st1) of exactly the kind the today’s Republicans like to rail against and try to disband? Are you seriously trying to suggest that American politics has not moved far to the right over the past decades? I think Bill Maher said it best: in recent decades Democrats have moved far to the right, Republicans have moved into the mental hospital. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/16 "2015-03-22T21:31:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How about Party Platform? Or legislation proposed/passed? Ok… > [@](#): > > **GOP platform through the years shows party’s shift from moderate to conservative** > > The word “abortion” does not appear in a Republican Party platform until 1976, when the party concedes that it is deeply split between those who support “abortion on demand” and those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn. > > The quest for lower taxes does not define Republicanism until the 1980s, and matters of faith play almost no role in the GOP’s plank until the 1990s. > > The Republican Party, viewed through its quadrennial platform documents, is consistently business-oriented and committed to a strong defense, but has morphed over the past half-century from a socially moderate, environmentally progressive and fiscally cautious group to a conservative party that is suspicious of government, allied against abortion and motivated by faith. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html) I provided a citation above on how Dems have moved to the right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/17 "2015-03-22T21:36:03Z")
“Recent decades” does not include 1974. That was over 40 years ago. Shall we talk about The Party of Lincoln next? And for this one: > [@](#): > > The word “abortion” does not appear in a Republican Party platform until 1976 Well, duh! It didn’t need to! Roe v Wade was not decide until the 1970s. Shockingly, the Party Platform in the 1980s didn’t say anything about SSM either. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/18 "2015-03-22T21:41:42Z")
I remember 1976 very clearly: many of us were uncomfortable with Jimmy Carter as a candidate because he was _too conservative_. Really, the current crop of republicans do not even deserve to be called “conservative”, they are so far to the right of that (on average) that they would be likely to call a genuine conservative a damn socialist commie. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/19 "2015-03-22T21:49:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Recent decades” does not include 1974. That was over 40 years ago. Shall we talk about The Party of Lincoln next? Well, me and others have piled evidence on our side of the ledger suggesting the political climate has gotten more conservative. Also that is within my lifetime so seems fair game. Seems to me you need to provide some counter-evidence that the political climate of the last several decades has gotten more liberal or, at the least, stayed about the same. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/20 "2015-03-22T21:54:18Z")
Briefly, there are three basic problems with the assertions the OP is trying to make. First, by his own data, Republicans get more corporate funding. Further, the problem is much larger than those sanitized figures suggest because Republicans are overwhelmingly the preferred party of corporations and the wealthy and this support is reflected in myriad different ways. Second, the fact that Democrats also receive corporate funding is not an exoneration but another symptom of the same problem. It’s been observed that Congress as a whole tends to support corporate interests regardless of party. I wonder why? Republicans are just more flagrant and extreme about it. Third, the problem of big money is much bigger than direct political contributions. The problem is what might be called the “Koch brothers syndrome” after its most ruthless practitioners: a vast and mostly secretive network of PR organizations, front groups, and all other manner of propagandizing relentlessly shaping public opinion towards the interests of those doing the propagandizing. Those two factors together – ownership of the political process and influential control over public opinion – are together the reason some have suggested that America is no longer a functional democracy at all. Whether that’s fully accurate may be debatable, but to try to argue in these circumstances that money in politics isn’t a problem at all strikes me as the height of ridiculousness. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693.md?page=2)