Dr A writes:
But that is a list of super-PAC donors.
I think Oni's point is that the candidate who spends most wins. That a large amount of the funds used are via corporate donations doesn't detract from this. In fact it probably adds to his wider point....
Dr A writes:
My point is that when we're measuring how much money is given to the candidates directly --- to their official campaign funds --- we are measuring donations from ordinary people, not from corporations. Therefore this sum of money will correlate with the popularity of the candidates without necessarily causing it.
Direct donations could indeed account for a correlation between popularity and campaign funds which nullifies the spend-to-win argument.
So I guess the question now becomes what portion of each candidates campaign fund is gathered from individuals and what is through these super-pacs?
Looking into the bewildering world of US political funding also revealed that even more influential than super pacs (in terms of sheer dollar amounts) are 501(c)(4)s.
quote:
Two conservative nonprofits, Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, have poured almost $60 million into TV ads to influence the presidential race so far, outgunning all super PACs put together, new spending estimates show.
These nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s or c4s for their section of the tax code, don't have to disclose their donors to the public.
Source
I can't find the figures but it seems likely that direct donations made by individuals to official campaign funds make up a relatively small amount of the total war-chest.