Entertaining politics - your donations may not go where you think. Political action committees (PACs and SuperPacs) take in much more than they spend supporting (or opposing) candidates. It can be a profitable business. (Reading the end of year reports at the Federal Election Commission is extraordinarily tedious, but proves the point.)
In a study of conservative political action committees, these 10 took in $54 million in one year: they paid themselves $50 million and spent $3.6 million on supporting the elections. That's less than a tenth that went to the actual purpose of the donations.
That $50 million came from gullible contributors hoping to make a difference, preserve national values, save the life of an unborn child. The PACs even raised money for candidates like Condoleezza Rice who had no interest in running. The PACs used the money for themselves, of course. It's not illegal, unfortunately, just unethical, immoral, dishonest, deceptive, conscienceless fraud, and deserving of more than harsh words.
Comments
These are the PACs that call the retiree's list of registered voters and solicit support, promising to stand firm on the voter's behalf. Generally, they live on small donations from many.
The above money players are not to be confused with single-donor PACs where rich people can buy more influence. That's the other extreme of our broken law and election regulations.
Both are adequate reason to be dissatisfied.
There are more than 4,000 registered PACs.
In 1974, Congress enacted limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case removed the ban, holding that expenditures could not be limited, and that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups independently from the supported candidate.
The birth of the Super PAC legalized corruption in our elections.