Since the controversial decision of the US Supreme Court in 2010, the 2016 presidential election has become a “battlefield” for the super-rich to spend money to compete for influence and control.

Billionaire Donald Trump announced that he will only accept donations without conditions - Photo: Reuters

According to CBS News, recently billionaire Donald Trump, Republican candidate, proudly announced that he had just rejected a $5 million political donation from an investment fund manager.

Mr. Trump affirmed that with his huge fortune of 10 billion USD, he is willing to spend 1 billion USD on the election campaign.

He fiercely criticized his opponent Jeb Bush for raising more than $150 million. “Jeb Bush is a puppet of his donors. Sooner or later they will ask him for help. I don’t owe anyone anything,” Trump emphasized.

Mr. Trump also said he would only accept donations “without strings attached.” That message is one of the reasons why Mr. Trump has won such high support from Republican voters, currently up to 32% according to a survey by CNN/ORC Poll.

The billionaire's statement may be controversial, but it's not wrong. The political influence of America's super-rich on election campaigns is exploding.

Massive spending on election

In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a form of free speech. This meant that corporations and billionaires had unlimited power to spend money on political activities. As a result, in the 2016 presidential election, the super-rich poured money into a series of super PACs (political action committees) supporting candidates.

In theory, a PAC supporting a candidate would be prohibited from coordinating that candidate's campaign strategy and plans. But the reality is quite the opposite.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), in the first six months of 2011, PACs raised only a few tens of millions of dollars for candidates in the 2012 election. But in the same period of 2015, PACs raised more than $400 million.

Between January 1 and June 30, more than 48,000 Americans donated $130 million directly to the campaign. And just 65 wealthy individuals contributed $132 million to PACs. A prime example is the case of Republican candidate Ted Cruz.

His PACs received $15 million from oil billionaire brothers Farris and Dan Wilks, and $21 million from two hedge fund managers.

Just six individuals have given $36 million to Mr. Cruz’s PAC. His campaign has raised just $14 million from ordinary voters.

Similarly, of the $16 million in donations that flowed into Republican candidate Marco Rubio's PACs, $12.5 million came from four wealthy tycoons.

The billionaire Koch family, with a fortune of $120 billion, publicly announced that it would invest $889 million in the current election campaign to promote conservative, far-right political policies.

Every six months, the Kochs hold a convention to ask Republican candidates to “show off.” Before the August convention in California, Mr. Trump tweeted: “I wish all the Republican candidates good luck coming to California to ask for money from the Kochs. They are puppets.”

Destroy the American political system

The Boston Globe quoted political expert Kellyanne Conway as saying that PACs were active during the 2012 election season, but have now “reached another level.”

Expert Fred Wertheimer, leader of Democracy 21, criticized: "A small number of the richest people in America are exercising terrible political influence, while 300 million Americans are left on the sidelines."

Former US President Jimmy Carter was even more harsh: “We are witnessing the breakdown of the American political system.” According to Mr. Carter, the unlimited flow of money into politics is an act of bribery and “violation of the spirit of the political system that made America a great nation.”

Lawrence Noble of the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warns that the influence of the super-rich on elections has severely diminished the role of ordinary voters.

“American democracy is under threat. Basic political principles are being violated,” Mr. Noble emphasized.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate for the Democratic Party, called for the US Supreme Court to overturn a 2010 ruling. She said the US political system had been “hijacked by billionaires”. However, she herself had benefited from this mechanism.

A Clinton PAC has raised $15 million, including money from billionaires. Trump revealed that he donated to Clinton during the last election and asked her to attend his wedding. “And she did. Because she had no choice,” Trump said.

So is Mr Trump a better choice? Some experts say that having a billionaire pouring money into the White House is no more democratic than having another candidate bought by the big guys.

Mr. Trump himself has admitted that over the past decades he has repeatedly paid politicians and then demanded benefits. Therefore, Mr. Trump's description of himself as a "lotus" in a "swamp" of political money is considered ridiculous.

According to TTO