They are a few dozen have made a fortune in energy and finance, are unknown to the general public and contributed more than half of the funds raised so far by the candidates in the presidential election: the New York Times investigated these families “apart” whose portfolio weighs on US politics.
According to the countdown of the US daily, 158 families donated $ 176 million, nearly half of the funds raised so far by the candidates: an unprecedented concentration since the 1970s These families are obviously far from being representative of the average American home and mainly derive their fortunes from finance, the sector of the energy, or entertainment.
They form what Times described as “a class apart, away from most Americans while geographically, socially and economically close each other “. They often live in the same neighborhoods – Los Angeles, Houston or Miami – do not have, for the most part inherited their wealth, and in their ranks many immigrants who are not born in the United States
“Sometimes, regardless of political considerations, they chair the same symphony orchestras, the same museums or similar youth programs. They are partners in business, marry their children and, occasionally clash poker “ describes the daily
A very strong Republican bias
This small group of Americans mainly funded Republican candidates. This is due to personal, economic – some candidates have made a fortune in the same area that they – and above all ideological. The majority of these families share with the Republican candidates will get rid of legislative and regulatory barriers that apply to businesses. Many Republican candidates want eg cancel certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed after the financial crisis of 2008, which established the legal barriers for hedge funds, that many of these families own .
The US daily also sees this trend Republican, a “financial balances” to the bottom demographic trend that favors Democrats. Most Americans are also in favor of more taxes for the wealthy and greater state intervention to correct inequities.
The New York Times notes that, paradoxically, although the amount spent may seem very important, they are only a paltry fraction of the wealth of these families. Kenneth Griffin, Financial of Chicago, for example, spent 300,000 dollars in the election, the equivalent of 21 US dollars for an average budget.
This imbalance is also the result of the judgment in United Citizen the US Supreme Court, which has reduced the legal constraints to the participation of businesses in the financing of American political life.