campaign election cost spending

disambig sorta but useful to have place to track stats trends<div>
</div><div>see superpac</div><div>see dark $</div><div>see pluto-olig
<div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/billionaires-2656489510/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/billionaires-2656489510/</a></div><div>
</div><div>me truthout</div><div>Billionaire election <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/since-citizens-united-billionaires-are-spending-nearly-1b-more-on-elections/" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">spending has drastically increased over the last 12 years as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling</a>, according to TruthOut.Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) recently analyzed data that breaks down election campaign contributions. Their assessment suggests that there is an upward trend in billionaire donations to political campaigns. Per the assessment, "billionaires have increased their donations from $31 million total during the 2010 election cycle to a whopping $1.2 billion in the 2020 election cycle, or about 39 times more."In short, the amount spent in just 2020 accounts for almost 40% of all billionaire political campaign donations since 1990. In fact, spending in the four-year span between 2012 and 2016 is an indication of how trends have changed dramatically.In 2016, billionaires spent approximately $682 million in campaign donations as opposed to just $233 million back in 2012. So how did the Citizens United ruling open this door?Per Truthout:"In January of 2010, conservative Supreme Court justices ruled in their Citizens United decision that restricting corporate donations was a violation of corporations’ First Amendment rights – a decision that granted individual rights to corporations and enabled them to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign contributions. As a result of this decision, vast amounts of money from corporate and deep-pocketed interests have been funneled into elections."Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness released a statement criticizing the court's decision describing it as "weak taxation of the wealthy" and "anemic regulation."“On this anniversary of the disastrous Citizens United decision, the escalating campaign donations of billionaires offer the clearest argument possible for why we have to get big money out of politics,” said Clemente. “Weak taxation of the wealthy combined with anemic regulation of campaign fundraising have handed America’s billionaires outsized political influence to go along with their huge economic clout.”
AFFT also released a statement criticizing the ruling.“Corporations are not people, and billionaires shouldn’t get to use their enormous wealth to pick and choose who they want in office,” Americans for Tax Fairness wrote. “It’s well beyond time for Citizens United to go, and to put real action towards getting big money out of politics. Our democracy depends on it.”
=
rod graham<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/how-inequality-is-imperling-democracy/">https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/how-inequality-is-imperling-democracy/</a>...Unionized jobs and jobs that pay solid middle-class wages are being replaced by “gig” jobs and low-paid service jobs. Meanwhile, wages for jobs in finance, law, medicine and information technology are booming.This is the much-talked-about “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hollowing-out-the-middle_b_7695576" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">hollowing out</a>” of the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/09/1-the-hollowing-of-the-american-middle-class/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">middle class</a>.Second, the distance – measured by income, between rich and poor – is widening. A <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44705.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">report from the Congressional Research Service</a> on this issue makes it clear: “In 1975, the average income of households in the top fifth of income distribution was 10.3 times as large as average household income in the bottom fifth of the distribution; in 2019, average top incomes were 16.6 times as large as those at the bottom.”Being in an upper-income household in the United States today means you are living a different life than poorer households.In some respects, the above quote underestimates the degree of distance between rich and poor, especially in terms of wealth.According to data <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:125;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:all;units:levels" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">from the Federal Reserve</a>, at the end of 2021, the top 10 percent of American households controlled $99.20 trillion. The rest of the households had wealth amounting to $42.98 trillion dollars.It actually gets worse. If we look at just the bottom half of American households, their wealth amounts to $3.73 trillion dollars.Ok, so why does it matter?Income inequality produces oligarchy.PoliticsFew people are so naive as to assume everyone has an equal say in who is elected and what legislation they put forth. We all know that while the vote cast by a working-class Joe or Jane is equal to the vote cast by a millionaire, the millionaire’s money influences who is elected and what legislation the elected decides to support.But the extent to which money impacts politics is astounding.Consider the current Alabama senate race.According to <a href="http://opensecrets.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">OpenSecrets.org</a>, Super PAC <a href="https://www.alabamaconservativesfund.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">Alabama Conservatives Fund</a> has spent $<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/recips.php?cmte=C00786152&cycle=2022" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">1.8 million </a>in support of Katie Britt’s 2022 bid.Britt is one of several Republican contenders to replace the outgoing Senator Richard Shelby. The Alabama Conservatives Fund has released several campaign spots touting Britt’s conservative principles.Harbert Management, an investment management firm, is the super PACs biggest investor, donating $250,000. The company’s CEO is Raymond J. Harbert, who is <a href="https://moneyinc.com/richest-people-alabama/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">one of the richest people in Alabama</a>.So what do you think your direct donation of $50 does?To be sure, small donations do add up. But when a candidate gets a $250,000 boost from a local, well-known millionaire, that has to play into the political calculus of that candidate.As a side note, Britt is in the vein of Marjorie Taylor Green and Madison Cawthorne. She is pro-Christian, pro-life and anti-immigration. Indeed, the person who would have been the favorite in a pre-Trump universe, current US Rep. Moe Brooks, was <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mo-brooks-woke_n_623b8e5be4b0d39357d0cd47" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">called “woke” by Donald Trump</a> who then rescinded his endorsement.Accordingly, her Trumpist Christian nationalist bona fides have gained the favor of the Alabama Christian Conservatives super PAC to the tune of $1.2 million.This spending by super PACs is all above board and expected. In this regard, Katie Britt’s campaign is not unique. Nor is the state of Alabama.Nor are conservatives. What is unique is the growing gap between the rich and everyone else, and the growing ability for wealthy people working alone or in concert to bend politics to their will.I zeroed in on Alabama to show in a more concrete way how money impacts politics. But there is no solace in zooming out.It gets worse.<a href="https://www.citizen.org/article/oligarch-overload/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" class="rm-stats-tracked" style="text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1; transition: color 0.25s ease 0s, background 0.25s ease 0s, opacity 0.25s ease 0s;">According to Public Citizen</a>, 25 people contributed half ($1.4 billion) of all individual super PAC contributions ($3 billion) since 2010....====</div></div>