Apparently it was Karl Rove who said to the donors who supported the Romney campaign with huge blocks of cash, “without us, the race would not have been as close as it was.” The “us” in that statement was the small number of superrich donors who forked over megabucks to defeat Obama. While Obama’s donors were by comparison fairly modest, which is to say that the support for him came from a broad range of individuals, those for Romney, on the contrary, came in large part from a few superrich individuals, that is, from the upper 1%, even the upper .01%. AlexanderAbad-Santos on Atlantic Wire has reported on the top donors to both sides.
The top donors for Romney were among the richest individuals in the world. A Romney win would have been disastrous for the 99% of our country because as the new President he would have been indebted to a small number of individuals. The presidency would be an instrument of the interests and outlooks of a tiny fraction of the population. The United States of America would be a Banana Republic.
And this could happen for little cost to those who are truly super-rich. According to Abad-Santos the amounts given to Romney’s campaign by the largest donors were tiny fractions of their total worth:
- Sheldon Adelson, Owner of Las Vegas Sands, gave a mere .04% of his total wealth (i.e., between 70 and 100 million dollars);
- Harold “The Ice Man” Simmons, owner of Contran Corp, a Dallas-based waste/chemical management company gave a mere .3 to .5% of his total wealth (30 to 50 million dollars);
- The Koch Brothers – well, they could have given as much a $95 million but no one knows that actual total. Most of it is hidden; Open Secrets say they can identify $36,637,591 given to conservative, essentially libertarian causes.
The top donor to Obama, Jeffrey Katzenberg, gave peanuts by comparison: $2.566 million.
Why would Romney’s supporters give such huge sums? According to Abad-Santos none of them claimed to have done so in the interest of the country, that is, for anyone else than themselves. Adelson claimed he did so because he “liked to win,” and he was piqued by a comment of Obama that Wall Streeters shouldn’t be taking free trips to Vegas on taxpayer’s money. Simons said he gave such amounts because Karl Rove recommended it, and anyway he thinks Obama is a socialist. The Koch brothers are known to be libertarians; they seem to be major factors in the right-ward bolt of the Republican Party in the last few years. According to Carter Eskew of the Washington Post, “they are giving to support what they see as being in their business or personal financial interest: lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government” (quoted by Abad-Santos).
So, to state the obvious: a President Romney would have owed his soul to a few donors who for little cost to themselves had gained a strangle-hold on the most powerful office in the world. The rest of the country could have been disenfranchised.
And would the great donors care? They have given little sign that they care much about the rest. Would they even notice the privations of ordinary people? Not so far.
For these men the proportional cost of their investment in Romney was minimal, although for Romney they would have been critical to his success. He would never be unaware of where the big contributions came from, even though they can legally be hidden from the rest of the country. In the last election Romney knew very well who gave large sums – a fair number of them showed up for his “victory party” in Boston. If he had been elected he would have made sure they got their due.
Our country has been spared a great transformative catastrophe. But what about the next time? Does anyone doubt that it will happen again?
Some related sources on this topic: