What if politicians had to wear the logos of their biggest donors?

Open Secrets has done a decent job parsing together all the stats on the candidates you might want with a page for each candidate that lists their top donors.

That would be so cool!!! Should be required.

@Cruiser That’s an interesting source. Here are the sources of funding for three of the candidates:

Hillary Clinton
78% are from large individual contributions.
16% are from small individual contributions.
She has given $368k to her own campaign.

Bernie Sanders
72% are from small individual contributions
26% are from large individual contributions.
He has given $0 to his campaign, but that sounds strange.

Donald Trump
34% are from individual contributions (25% small, 8% large)
66% are from his own contributions.
He has funded ⅔ of his own campaign.

That’s pretty interesting. About ¾ of Hillary’s is from large contributions, while ¾ of Bernie’s are from small contributions. I couldn’t find the definition of “small” and “large”, but Hillary has overall received significantly more money than Bernie. (115MM > 75MM)

@dxs I keep hearing on the morning news shows they keep touting how Sanders has raised some $31,000,000 and the average donation is only $27.00 and that adds up to a LOT of supporters.

It would be great. Then you would see at first glance who he/she is really working for.

What a wonderful idea. The size of the logo would be determined by the scale of the bribe. Too bad the scheme reeks with first amendment hurdles.

Great idea.

The question I have is how would pizza sized buttons with amounts that XYZ Corp donated to each candidate make a difference for you? Would you be relieved to see your favorite has a massive war chest or would the sources of these donations make you think twice about who your candidate’s best interests besides yours they are beholden to?

@Cruiser, for me, seeing that a potential elected official was heavily funded by large corporate entities would concern me. I would question their ability to make decisions that are not in the best interest of their corporate sponsors. I see a conflict of interest, and at some point, the piper will want to be paid.

I live in a country with a very different political system to yours, so I do understand that to stand as a Presidential candidate you need an enormous amount of funding behind you, however, in my experience funding always comes with strings. A candidate with a broader range of financial backing – corporate and individual – would appeal to me more than someone with high corporate funding levels.

I really like the idea of candidates having to overtly demonstrate where their funding is coming from. I’m not sure about badges, but certainly I think information about their funding should be highly visible and accessible to voters.

I would hate to have to embroider all those names on Bernie’s suit…

@Earthbound_Misfit This infusion of huge amounts of money into all the elections to me is why we have such gridlock in Congress as every Congressman and Senator even Mayors and Governors all have made promises they have to keep especially if they really want to get re-elected. What is additionally unfun is the amount of foreign funds that finds it’s way into our elections and IMO can only infect who we trade with and the deals we make with them. Campaign finance reform is way overdue.

And no other campaign issue is more hypocritical that Citizens United. No one said a peep about it when hundreds of millions of big donor funds help Obama buy the Presidency and his subsequent re-election. But anytime a Republican is out to make a challenge seat in the House or Senate….Citizens United is worse than the plague. People need to realize that is hurts us equally as we get screwed by special interest deals and only the politicians benefit from all that money.

@Cruiser that is not completely accurate or fair. There are plenty of us that have been against the moneyed interests having such a big influence on our elections even before Citizens United legalized it and we may have supported Obama or some other non-Republican candidate but were not happy that our piddly little contributions didn’t amount to a hill of beans compared to that of the Koch Broz. or George Soros. It does none of us any good if the system is rigged in favor of a select few.
You and I are probably on opposite ends of the political spectrum, we may disagree sometimes on what is actually a problem or the best way to effect a solution but we want the same thing; fairness and equity.
Unfortunately, until the system is changed, and I see no reason for optimism, our voices are simply cries in the wilderness.

Wish I had @Gailcalled here to tell me whether or not I used “effect” correctly or should have used “affect”

@rojo I hear what you are saying and for the first time in my 37 year voting career we are witnessing politics emerge from beneath the thumb of big corporate donors where the front runners in both parties are not controlled or influenced by big corporate donations (yet). Trump is essentially self funding his campaign and Mr. Sanders has raised 37 million dollars with an average donation of $27.00 So that tells me you and I are not the only ones repulsed by the influence K Street lobbyists have had on our elections and the crap on a silver platter we subsequently get out of Congress.

@rojo – affect is a verb, effect is a noun.

In the case of Trump, the corporate donor and the candidate are one and the same. He does not need a corporate donor, because he is the corporate donor, and he does not need a candidate to promote his corporate interests, because he is that candidate.

@Cruiser I need to research more about Citizens United, because I don’t know much at all, but I have to wholeheartedly agree with you regarding money donated to politician causing some of the big problems in congress. I also agree that Trump and Sanders can’t be bought from what I can tell, and it is refreshing. I hope we get more candidates like that. Maybe things are changing.

The point I am making is during 2008 over 2 Billions dollars were spent on the Presidential campaign. Neither Bernie nor Trump stand a chance if they do not open their coffers to the big donor support. Funny part is that Conservative pacs have made it clear they would give their funds to Hillary before they give a dime to Trump. What will they do if Bernie wins the nomination?? Conservatives giving even a dime to a Socialist?? Never in a million years. Who knows, depending on how this all plays out maybe the big money sits on the sidelines unless Bloomberg jumps in the race. It is mind boggling that Biden has not jumped in as this would be his to take the way the race is today.

@Cruiser Do you think Bloomberg can be bought?

Why do conservatives say they would back Hillary before Trump? Plus, Trump keeps saying he won’t take any of their money anyway. Gawd, I would kind of love if the people who give major funds to control the president had no one to give to.

A coat of many colors….layers and layers of coats.
Politicians would have a trail of lobbyists wearing them also.
But what about all the ghost/spirit/invisible support? I’d like it better if it were The Emporer’s New Clothes.
They may support now… But what direction will the wind be blowing in the future?
Fickleness abounds.
As with many.

@JLeslie Bloomberg as a 3 term Mayor of NYC already has been bought many times over and more than a few time probably by Trump. Trump today admitted he has spent 24 million of his own money and 12 million of that was paying for his plane on the campaign trail which he then pays himself back with campaign money. Very savvy of him.

Plus I would be HUGELY surprised if Bloomberg jumps in the race as Trump has his number and would steamroll right over him.

@Cruiser I would be very shocked also if Bloomberg put his hat in the race.

Trump seems pretty open about what he has spent, and a few days ago I saw him correcting a reporter about something, I don’t remember what, to make sure the record was straight. A guy I met while in Ohio pointed out that many people are probably hunting for inconsistencies and lies Trump has told or is telling, and nothing astounding has come out yet. To him that meant Trump is probably pretty clean.