Move Over, Christian Coalition: The New Political Kingmakers

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA., speaking at a campaign news conference in this Nov. 8, 2000, file photo in Shoreline, Wash. Cantwell, a dot-com millionaire who financed her own campaign, narrowly defeated veteran Republican Sen. Slade Gorton. (Photo: Elaine Thompson/AP)

Part 2: Learjet Liberals

The American wealth boom has created a new generation of rich activists. Whether they’re funding campaigns or running for office, Richistanis are emerging as a major force in American politics. They’ve conquered the business world, and now they want power.

They come from all points along the political spectrum. For every left-leaning George Soros there’s a right-leaning T. Boone Pickens. Yet it’s the rich Democrats who are having the greatest impact — and not just because of the recent GOP crisis in Washington. The enormous wealth created in the nation’s liberal knowledge capitals — New York, California, Seattle, Austin, Denver, Boston and Washington — has spawned a new generation of left-leaning millionaires and billionaires. Many also grew up during the 1960s, during a time of increased sensitivity to minorities and the underclass. These “Learjet liberals,” to use author Jonathan Rauch’s term, are challenging the stereotype of rich politicos who see government as a tool to advance their wealth. Instead, they’re using their wealth as a tool to advance government.

Some are running for office. The number of candidates spending more than $1 million of their own money on their campaigns has soared from an average of three a year in the 1980s and 1990s to 24 in the 2004 election. Jon Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs exec, spent $61 million of his own money to win a U.S. Senate seat and several million dollars to become New Jersey’s governor. Michael Bloomberg, the financial-information magnate whose positions on social issues are more Democratic than Republican, spent $74 million to become New York City’s mayor, and another $77 million to get reelected (that works out to be about $100 per vote). Democrat Maria Cantwell spent nearly $10 million of her own fortune to win a Senate seat in the state of Washington, and Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl spent nearly $5 million of his own to retain his Senate seat.

Jennifer Steen, a political science professor at Boston College and the author of "Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections," says that loans and contributions from candidates increased from $36.6 million in 1990 to $124.7 million in 2004.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (seated). (Photo: Mel Evans/AP, 2007)

With campaigns becoming so expensive, and fund-raising becoming more restricted because of campaign-finance laws, politics has increasingly become a battle of millionaire versus millionaire.

The richest of the New Rich candidates tend to be Democrats. A study by Steen showed that among candidates who spent more than $4 million on their campaigns—what Steen calls “super extreme self-financers” — Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. Among “kind-of-extreme self-financiers,” or those who spend $1 million to $4 million, Republicans outnumber Democrats by almost two to one. In other words, the Republicans may rule Lower Richistan, but the Dems rule the top.

The trend also holds true for voters. A survey done by wealth researcher Russ Alan Prince during the 2004 elections showed that most single-digit millionaires backed President Bush in the 2004 election, citing his tax cuts and other “pocketbook” issues.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks with reporters at a conference in Los Angeles Tuesday, June 19, 2007. (Photo: Reed Saxon/AP)

The majority of superrich voters, or those worth $10 million or more, supported John Kerry, saying they cared more about the environment, budget deficits, health care and education, which were seen as Kerry issues.

Prince says the study shows that the superrich are more accustomed to thinking long term, over several generations. Just as they plan their estates and investments to last 100 years (because they can), they also view politics as a longer-term proposition. They don’t have to vote from their pocketbooks, since their pocketbooks are already fat enough. They’re more concerned with global warming, the failing U.S. education system and ailing health-care system — issues that will more likely affect their grandchildren.

“At a certain level of wealth, you care more about things like the environment and what’s going to happen to later generations than preserving your own money,” Prince says.

These aren’t the guilt-ridden “limousine liberals” of old, who arrived at their political views largely out of embarrassment over their unearned riches. Richistanis made their money themselves and they want to preserve the system of fairness and opportunities they had growing up. They see government more like an extension of their philanthropy — a way to leverage their charitable dollars to bring about greater social change. They have spent millions to fight poverty, improve the environment, fix inner cities and cure disease. And they’re now realizing that all their philanthropic donations are a drop in the bucket compared with government spending in the same areas.

As one education philanthropist told me, “When you look at what I spend compared to what government spends on schools, it’s like pissing in the wind.” So to have impact, today’s philanthropists also want a say in directing government funds.

Bill Gates, for instance, has donated more than $100 million to help improve New York City schools. Yet Michael Bloomberg, who spent even more to get elected as New York mayor, has exerted greater influence by helping to direct the city’s $12 billion school budget.

“To the mayor, politics is seen as a highly effective form of philanthropy,” says one aide (though some opponents and teachers’ unions, of course, might disagree).

There are still plenty of Richistanis who want to use government to get richer. More than a dozen wealthy families — including the Gallos of wine-making fame, and the Mars candy clan — have lobbied successfully for a reduction in the estate tax. In his book "Wealth and Democracy," Kevin Phillips argues that the American rich have consistently corrupted politicians and
manipulated government to reap larger fortunes, especially during wealth booms.

“The essence of plutocracy, fulfilled in 2000,” Phillips writes, “has been the determination and ability of wealth to reach beyond its own realm of money and control politics and government as well. In America, explains political scientist Samuel Huntington, ‘money becomes evil not when it is used to buy goods but when it is used to buy power . . . economic inequalities become evil when they are translated into political inequalities.’”

Yet the stories of Jared Polis and Tim Gill offer another, more hopeful sign for the effect of wealth on politics.

Part 1: The New Political Kingmakers

Part 3: Nuking the GOP

Part 4: A Band of Brothers

Reprinted from "Richistan: A Journey Through The American Wealth Boom And The Lives of The New Rich" by Robert Frank. Copyright © 2007. Published by Crown Business, a division of Random House, Inc.

Bookmark/Search this post with: