BIG MONEY=POLITICAL INFLUENCE? NOT NECESSARILY

posted by Michael Chihak

The U.S. Supreme Court last year declared that money is free speech, at least when it’s in the form of political contributions.

So if it is free speech, that is, if money talks, what is it saying? Just about anything the people who use it want it to say.

But wait. That might not be the key question here. Rather than what money is saying, why not look at where it’s coming from? And where is that? Not the sources you might think.

Big, monied interests aren’t the main contributors, at least for now. Instead, it’s mostly individuals making relatively small contributions.

Take the latest campaign finance reports filed last week. In the biggest race, President Obama brought in more than all eight Republican candidates combined, about $46 million in the second quarter. Just under half the total for Obama was in contributions of under $200.

For the Republicans, more than half the contributions to presidential candidates Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were under $200 dollars.

In our state, meantime, an Arizona Republic analysis of the 2010 election cycle showed the largest group of political contributors were retirees, giving $1.1 million total, or 14 percent of all campaign contributions.

The newspaper further reported that individuals made up the bulk of contributors, giving about $100 each, and many were affiliated with or influenced by organizations such as teachers’ unions, the National Rifle Association, the AARP and veterans’ groups.

One can draw any number of conclusions from the data, but certainly the notion that big money and big-shot donors dominate politics and own candidates doesn’t hold up.

So in politics, money does talk, but with many and varied voices.