18:38 GMT +327 May 2017
Live
    Two more Russian top officials declare million dollar income

    Research: Rich Political Donors in Control of US Government

    © Sputnik/ Michail Kutuzov
    Opinion
    Get short URL
    0 4032

    One in a million Americans sponsor more candidates then was allowed until last spring, when a US Court removed the limit, a recent research by the Center of Responsive Politics showed this week, raising arguments about the rich buying the US government.

    MOSCOW, September 5 (RIA Novosti) - One in a million Americans sponsor more candidates then was allowed until last spring, when a US Court removed the limit, a recent research by the Center of Responsive Politics showed this week, raising arguments about the rich buying the US government.

    “The US political system is owned and controlled by the one percent. US governments, from the city hall, to the state house, to the Federal government are now, more than ever, under direct corporate-capitalist one-percent control,” US policy analyst Mark Mason told RIA Novosti.

    On April 2, the US Supreme Court decided in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling to lift the limit on the number of political candidates one person could sponsor.

    A few months later, 310 political donors gave a total of $123,000 to political campaigns, surpassing the limit of how many times they could have made contributions before, Russ Choma, researcher and Money and Politics reporter the Center for Responsive Politics, told RIA Novosti.

    Political donors had given a total of nearly $50 million by the end of June, about 20 percent more than they would be allowed to before the legislation.

    While the number of donors increased, the largest amount one political sponsor can give to one campaign remained unchanged at $2,600, and only 0.03 percent of the US population give more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    The research suggested that donors were helping the parties more than individual candidates and the Republicans contributed more money, at a ratio of 2:1, “although on the whole, democratic organizations are doing much better,” Choma said.

    To Mason, the new rule makes “a bad system worse.”

    “It’s a fact… that the rich favor Republicans with respect to campaign finance contributions. It’s important to note that the rich give to both major parties thereby obliterating the few differences between the two parties,” Mason said.

    The full effect of the new donations remains to be seen after the 2016 elections, however.

    The sponsors say, when they donate, the candidates are more willing to listen to the issues of their concern. But Mason said that was just the problem.

    “The President and members of Congress are bought. The White House and Congress are for sale to the highest donors... The rich do not 'buy access' as is often claimed. The rich buy the politicians. The rich own elected officials. Elected officials are the personal property of the rich, no differently than when a corporation hires any other employee,” he said.

    An average winning House campaign cost $1.5 million in 2012, according to the research.

    Tags:
    money laundering, economy, stock markets
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment