The billionaire “climate hero” has given nearly $90,000 to a party whose members largely dismiss climate science.
A candidate who believes that campaign finance reform is critical to the future of our democracy should step forward to set a new standard. Every ad, website and social media communication should include the names of the candidate's top three donors.
The control of American politics, like so much in this country, has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. This trend can be seen by comparing patterns of political expenditures and voter participation in the non-presidential elections of 2006 and 2014.
Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. Most people get that. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, political contributions by corporations and the richest Americans actually are free speech and entitled to special protection. Even when they're made in secret.
On April 9, the US Senate held its first hearing on the proposed Comcast-Time Warner deal -- a $45 billion transaction that will affect millions of consumers and further pad some already well-lined pockets.
Those donors were Prudential Financial Inc. ($800,000), insurer Chubb Corp. (at least $375,000), MetLife Inc. (at least $250,000
The fundraising for Virginia Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe's inaugural party is seeing a serious lift due to donations from fossil-fuel dependent corporations. That these fossil-foolish interests can (seemingly) buy a seat at the table for such relatively paltry amounts is disconcerting.
Think all campaign spending goes toward advertising, printing yard signs and making campaign T-shirts? You'd be amazed at the expenses incurred by candidates stumping for votes.
Check out these charts on the groups' political contributions from Making Change at Walmart: In the case of both the Walmart
There are two simple solutions that Congress could enact tomorrow that would deal with the real problem, which is lack of disclosure of major political donors to (c)(4) groups.