A breakdown of the SuperPAC's in the 2012 election.
by Alexander Ross on Apr 22, 2015 | Views: 223 | Score: 3
With a little help from Mr Lessig's 2013 TED talk (which was only viewed 1.2 million times) about how money in the form of SuperPACs corrupted the 2012 election and in turn corrupted democracy. I put some numbers together to make these two simple pie charts. The aim is to highlight the point that; A) SuperPACs are BAD, because of B) They make millions of American voices irrelevant, which cause C) America to fail in providing a fair democracy which allows the whole population of people to elect someone to represent them. See the first pie chart, (the very purple one) it is supposed to demonstrate that 318 MILLION Americans is a much bigger number than 132 Americans. The second pie chart, (the 60/40 one) demonstrates that even though those 318 million americans far outnumber the 132, the 132 or .000042% of the population managed to contribute 60% of all SuperPACs in the 2012 election. Yes, that small number contributed more than half of the total contributions via SuperPACs donations. Lessig uses a phrase "relevant donors", he uses this because their money makes them relevant and the rights and voices of regular American citizens, irrelevant. If you haven't already watched that particular TED talk, it is sourced in the charts. If this topic sparks your interest please take a look at the video link below which is Lawrence Lessig's explanation of why America should reclaim democracy and his plan to do so with a SuperPAC to END all SuperPACs. https://www.youtube.com/watch…
Comparing the 0000.42% with everyone else.
| Purple = 318,000,000 million Americans | 318000 |
|---|---|
| Orange = 132 VERY rich Americans (its .000042% of the population) | 132 |
Percentage of population contributing to SuperPACs (2012)
| Purple = About 318 million people | 40 |
|---|---|
| Orange = 132 people | 60 |
of
Very, very striking graphs. There will always be those with more money or influence than others, but surely it is evident that money as a form of free speech is bound to introduce a lot of contradictions to a real democracy.
There will be in the current system, but a democracy is not supposed to discriminate based on how much wealth a person has, it is supposed to ensure everyone has a say. Money is a form of free speech because the current system revolves around it, money isn't a natural thing, it is something we created, and the problem now is that too much of it is unregulated. At the very least this country and the UK, need real democracies, not an illusion of one.