Thanks to the Supreme Court, their chances have improved.
After noting that just two dozen or so individuals, couples and companies have given more than 80 percent of the money collected by SuperPACs, the New York Times delves into the backgound of three of the biggest contributors:
¶Harold Simmons, a billionaire corporate raider, has given $1 million to Mr. Gingrich’s political action committee, $1.1 million to Rick Perry’s PAC, $100,000 to Mitt Romney’s PAC, and $10 million to American Crossroads, the super PAC advised by Karl Rove that is supporting many Republican candidates. Mr. Simmons’s companies make metals, paints and chemicals, among other things, and have gotten into trouble over lead and uranium emissions from previous decades. He also runs a radioactive waste dump in Texas that has clashed with environmental regulators over its proximity to a nearby aquifer. He controls Waste Control Specialists, which has contracts to clean up federal hazardous waste sites, including emissions from other companies he controls.
¶Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an outspoken libertarian, gave $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s PAC. In 2009, he wrote that the 1920s were the last decade when one could be optimistic about American politics, lamenting the subsequent rise of the welfare state that he blamed in part on giving women the right to vote.
¶Foster Friess, who gave $1 million to Rick Santorum’s Red White and Blue PAC, is a mutual fund manager who recently declared that aspirin used to be an effective contraceptive when women put it between their knees. He is a former president of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club of some of the country’s most powerful conservatives, which opposes unions, same-sex marriage and government regulation.
scott says:
If these guys want to give away their hard earned money why can’t they?? Does having money eliminate ones right to free speech? Or is free speech rationed out on a per capita basis? What is the level of wealth at which one can’t voice their opinion in a matter in which they choose? The opposite of this is more disturbing than the reality, ill advised contaceptive methods and all.
February 26, 2012, 2:05 pmMarc Schulman says:
Scott,
I’m certainly not suggesting that the wealthy shouldn’t be heard — they (and I include myself as being modestly among them) obviously have as much right to be heard as the less financially fortunate among us.
The issue, as I see it, is that, thanks to the SuperPACs, the voices of the wealthy, be they liberals or conservatives, are louder, more influential, and, worst of all, anonymous. In days gone bye, only those who met property qualifications were enfranchised. Today, few if any Americans would argue (at least openly) that the franchise should be restricted to property owners.
Contributors to SuperPACs are the modern-day men of property. Hiding behind non-partisan sounding labels, they exercise a disproportionate influence on candidates’ platforms and public opinion.
February 26, 2012, 5:45 pm