Be advised. With few exceptions, and none since 1976, the candidate with the biggest war chest wins the election.
[Source: The Hillary Recession, by Larry Kudlow]
Hillary (and before her Bernie) rails against the Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United. This Supreme Court decision, as I am certain my readers know, removed spending limits for political action committees (PACs), but also validated that unions had no spending limits. The Democrats do not complain about union political spending. Why is that, ask you? Because, answer I, unions are heavily pro-Democrat. You will note in the graph below that unions outspend non-union political contributors by a wide margin.
But note that the largest non-union contributor, by a leap and a bound, is ActBlue. ActBlue is a super-PAC that enables anyone to raise money on the Internet for the Democrat Party. They boast that they have raised $1.22 billion since 2004 according to their website (far more than the graph shows).
Calculating the impact of union “contributions” to political elections is difficult to say the least. They browbeat their members to vote Democrat. They mount massive “get out the vote” efforts for the Democrat Party. But even dollars – which they are required to disclose – have been difficult to trace.
Hillary – we all know she would never lie – wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who “will get money out of politics.” She states that she wants to pass “a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.”
And yet those detestable PACs have thus far benefited the Democrat Party and Hillary, by a triple leap and bound. Pro-Hillary hedge-fund contributions now total $48.5 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has received only $19,000 from hedge funds.
Does Hillary think Republican voters are naive enough to believe that she will work to “overturn Citizen’s United?” Of course not! But she does believe that Democrat voters are naive enough to believe that she will work to “overturn Citizen’s United.”