Opinion: Government unions rob working class blind

This article was originally published in Chicago Sun Times.

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it is less likely the Supreme Court will issue a ruling to stop public-sector unions from forcing non-union members to pay dues.

That’s a shame for American workers and taxpayers, who struggle to afford public unions’ lavish compensation packages. Taking into account both wages and benefits, the average federal public sector worker makes nearly 80 percent more than his or her private sector counterpart. That disparity is in large part a function of coercion: unions can force new workers to join, amplifying their bargaining power.

For hard-working middle class families, a Supreme Court ruling against the public-sector unions would put money back in their pockets and improve government services. Indeed, after the passage of legislation allowing public sectors workers to opt out of unions in Wisconsin, memberships in local National Teachers Union fell by half.

Public sector unions are now one of the biggest campaign contributors in the country. In 2014, they poured more than $65 million into federal campaigns and causes. That money has bought increasingly generous pay and benefits.

This rogue scheme is a betrayal of ordinary voters — and it is swamping state and local budgets, forcing taxes up and government services down.

It wasn’t until relatively recently that unions were able to organize government workers. Even staunch labor advocates like President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the risks involved in letting government workers unionize.

When private sector unions sit down to collectively bargain, they are in an adversarial relationship with corporate management. Each extra dollar of compensation is a dollar less for shareholders. Ultimately, both sides work out a compromise they can live with.

However, with public unions, politicians are “management.” They are negotiating with somebody else’s money — the taxpayers’. There is no incentive for re-election obsessed politicians to turn down their public union supporters’ extravagant demands. Both parties are effectively on the same side of the table.

State and local workers, according to an in-depth study from the Cato Institute, have a 34 percent advantage over their private sector counterparts. Needless to say, that negotiating leverage translated into hugely inflated salaries. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that among college graduates, federal workers make 15 percent more than their private sector counterparts. For those with a high school diploma or less, federal workers make 36 percent more.

In some cases, the pay disparity is truly astonishing. In Los Angeles, for example, security guards make more than twice what their private sector counterparts earn. Janitors in New York City schools take home an average of $109,467.

The advantage isn’t just with wages. Public union workers get far better benefits – materially more generous health insurance, retirement plans, and paid sick leave — than union workers in the private sector. Fully 95 percent of unionized state and local government workers have traditional, guaranteed-for-life pensions, compared with 70 percent of private sector union workers.

While private sector union membership has been in decline for decades, public sector unions are thriving. Where fewer than 8 percent of private sector workers belong to a union, almost 40 percent of state and local government workers do. In states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, more than half of all government workers are unionized.

Public pension costs are swamping state and local budgets. These costs have contributed to a number of municipal bankruptcies, including Stockton, Vallejo, and San Bernardino in California and Detroit in Michigan.

Of course, it’s taxpayers — most of them middle-class and working class families — who foot the bill for this mind-bending largesse. Moreover, unlike politicians, taxpayers get nothing tangible in return. Overly generous public employee compensation crowds out the government’s ability to do anything else.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg once admitted that “every penny in personal income tax we collect will go to cover our pension bill.” Up to 60 percent of Washington State’s budget is effectively off limits to lawmakers since it goes to pay salaries and benefits of government workers. That means less money for roads, education, safety, and more.

Unions once served a noble purpose in this country, protecting workers from abuse and boosting earnings without undermining business growth. Today, unfortunately, public employee unions have morphed into vessels of unrestrained greed. Labor bosses have been exploiting the odd dynamics of public sector employment to boost wages and benefits well beyond what is reasonable. The Supreme Court should bring this abuse to an end.

If you are a private company worker, the best way to get a raise is to quit, and go to work for a public employee union.

Are Political Pundits Getting Worse? Or Are Politics More Unpredictable?

We are in the midst of one of the most interesting, and unusual, political races in recent memory. While some of this can be attributed to the unlikely stars of the 2016 president election, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the rest seems to be unexplainable. At least it is for the political pundits.

This past week, a confused Tony Blair told the Financial Times, “I really mean it when I say that I’m not sure I fully understand politics right now, which is an odd thing to say when I’ve spent my life in it.”

There is no question that the surge from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders caught much of the country off guard. Many assumed that there campaigns would run aground before they would ever have reached the Republican caucus in Nevada or Democratic primary in South Carolina.

The inability of almost anyone to explain what is going on right has many of us wondering, are politics getting more unpredictable? Or are politics pundits getting worse? Right now, it appears that the answer is both.

According to a tally conducted by ThinkProgress, over thirty publications have already declared

that Trump’s candidacy for presidency has reached the beginning of the end. We would understand if these were all liberal publications writing these stories, but the fact of the matter is that Republican publications have not faired any better.

Even Nate Silver, who came onto the scene back in 2008 as the answer to this very problem of unfounded certainty, calculated last November that Trump’s support was “about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.” Well, if that is the case then it looks like there are a lot of people who believe the moon landing is a conspiracy.

So there is no question that political pundits are having a difficult time getting a grasp on the current political landscape. It is important to say that we should be wary of thinking that there ever was a golden age of political predictability. But at the same time, I think everyone understands the world has evolved greatly, and it has rapidly changed over the past few election cycles.

Technology has introduced new members to the political arena and elevated the status of celebrity, moving us even further away from predictability. Most importantly, however, technology has limited the influence of the political parties as a whole.

For years, the Republican and Democratic National Committees had an enormous influence over steering the parties ship, positing themselves to have their ideal candidate in position to win when it is all said in done.

Nowadays, the everyday person has more of a say than ever. With the click of a button, you can spread your message to the masses (that is if they actually want to read it, but you get the point).

These two trends can certainly help to explain the popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Are they the people that the RNC or DNC would like to see? No. Are they the candidates that the majority of the country wants to see? Probably not.

We are now living in a time when more people have a voice, and right now it appears that the larger this voice becomes, the more difficult it will be to predict.

Sarah Palin’s PAC Is Up to Its Old Money Tricks

Source: The Daily Beast by Jackie Kucinich

Sarah Palin and her folksy turns of phrase returned to the stump last week, trailing amped-up Trump fans and self-serving fundraising requests in her wake.

“In order to get Sarah to political events to support endorsed candidates we need your help to fundraise her travel,” said an email from Sarah PAC after her “historic” Trump endorsement.

It’s true, travel is expensive. After all, what self-respecting reality TV star stays at a Holiday Inn these days?

For example, around the same time Palin was part of the Saturday Night Live 50th anniversary special, $4,563 was spent at the swanky Waldorf-Astoria in New York City.

That sort of bill doesn’t pay for itself.

According to Federal Election Commission reports, in the first six months of last year, Sarah PAC—Palin’s organization that purports to be dedicated “to help[ing] elect principled, conservative leaders” spent $16,062 on a private charter in Jackson, Wyoming, $3,855 on a “car and driver” in Long Island City, New York, and a total of $4,364 at La Playa Hotel in Naples, Florida.

To read the rest of the story, please check out the full article below:

Sarah Palin’s PAC Is Up to Its Old Money Tricks

Hispanic Voters Don’t Support Illegal Immigrants – Presidential Candidates Better Take Note


By Thomas Tucker and Yuri Vanetik

November 2016… Donald Trump beats Hillary Clinton in the general election because of strong support from … Hispanics?!

That scenario isn’t as far-fetched as it may seem, despite Trump’s often flippant and at times abrasive comments about immigration and Hispanics, among other things. A new poll by SurveyUSA shows Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton among registered voters in part because he commands the support of 31 percent of Hispanics. That’s not only a higher share than Mitt Romney received in 2012 — it’s more than Republican George H.W. received in 1988 when he won the general election.

Given Trump’s penchant for incendiary remarks about Mexican immigrants and his promise to build “a great wall” along the southern border, the extent of his Hispanic support may seem baffling. But it shouldn’t.

Most Hispanics aren’t single-issue voters when it comes to immigration. A recent Gallup poll found that, among registered Latino voters, 67 percent are at least willing to support a candidate who doesn’t share their views on immigration. Furthermore, 18 percent don’t consider the issue important to them at all.

What’s more, many Hispanic citizens have little sympathy for immigrants who haven’t played by the rules. Hispanic voters support rational immigration policies and the rule of law.  In fact, many Hispanics resent cheaters and law breakers.  Especially among Latino voters born in the United States, resentment of immigrants who have entered the country illegally can run deep. Forty-two percent of American-born Hispanics disapprove of President Obama’s executive actions to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants.  These statistics are telling.

Ergo, it would be wise for presidential hopefuls to propose specific reforms to America’s immigration policy.

What would such an approach look like? Well, it goes without saying that border enforcement would be a primary goal. Trump’s signature proposal, after all, is a wall along the Mexican border with “a big, beautiful door . . . so that people can come into this country legally.”

For this to be more than a one-liner, presidential candidates will need to fill in some details when it comes to creating effective and fair immigration rules. For example, presidential candidates need a strategy for finding and holding accountable immigrants who remain in the country longer than the law allows. Systems such as biometric exit points, which would track visitors through their fingerprints or photographs, could help ensure that the person leaving the country is the same one who entered.

The frontrunners also need a more economically viable plan to deal with America’s current population of undocumented workers. Trump has already said that after deporting such workers — who make up 5 percent of the U.S. labor force — he’d be willing to”invit[e] the good ones back to get documentation and become legal.”

It would certainly be cheaper and more effective to skip the mass deportations and simply grant temporary work permits to certain illegal immigrants who pass a rigorous qualification process. These individuals would need to learn English and pay hefty monetary penalties for having violated the law. And to weed out the dangerous criminals that most of the presidential candidates are concerned about, a thorough background check would be essential.

If Trump’s border wall is as effective as he promises — and his enforcement strategy strong enough — illegal workers would jump at the opportunity to atone for their immigration violations and become legitimate residents of the United States.

Trump has inadvertently revealed that aggressive, security-focused immigration policies don’t necessarily turn off Hispanic voters. Now, presidential frontrunners, whoever they end up being, have an opportunity to showcase their business and policy acumen by advancing serious reforms that propel economic growth instead of simply igniting controversy.

Yuri Vanetik is a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute and director at Gen Next and the Gen Next Foundation. Thomas Tucker is the co-founder of The New Majority.

Where Do The Candidates Stand On The Most Important Issues?

The 2016 Elections have dominated the news over the past several months. Despite the high level of coverage, it may be difficult to understand exactly where candidates stand on some of the most important issues. To help you make a more informed decision here is a breakdown of where each candidate stands on some of the biggest issues.


Immigration has been one of the most discussed and controversial issues throughout the Republican primary. While some candidates would like to pursue a path for undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally, there are others who condemn granting what they consider amnesty.

Path to citizenship:

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Martin O’Malley (D), Lindsey Graham (R)

Polling Data: 75% of Democrats agree; 44% of Republicans agree

Path to stay:

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Ben Carson (R), Chris Christie (R), Carly Fiorina (R), John Kasich (R), George Pataki (R), Rand Paul (R), Marco Rubio

Polling Data: 9% of Democrats agree; 15% of Republicans agree

Against legalizing undocumented immigrants:

Candidates: Ted Cruz (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R)

Polling Data: N/A

Deport undocumented immigrants

Candidates: Donald Trump (R)

Polling Data: 12% of Democrats agree; 37% of Republicans agree


There have been a number of high-profile mass shootings this year, reigniting the nation’s long-running debate over gun violence and gun restrictions. While Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have been vocal in pushing for new restrictions; Republicans have been, for the most part, uniform in their opposition to new restrictions.

Tighten Gun Control Laws

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Martin O’Malley (D)

Polling Data: 76% of Democrats agree; 23% of Republicans agree

Oppose new restrictions

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Ben Carson (R), Chris Christie (R), Carly Fiorina (R), John Kasich (R), George Pataki (R), Rand Paul (R), Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham (R), Ted Cruz (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R), Donald Trump (R)

Polling Data: 19% of Democrats agree; 59% of Republicans agree


Climate change has been a very controversial issue that has been a big priority for the Democratic candidates. Republicans, on the other hand, are divided between those who acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change (but oppose regulations that they say would hurt the economy) those who expressed doubts about man’s role or even deny that climate change exists.

Support action on climate change

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Martin O’Malley (D), Lindsey Graham (R)

Polling Data: 74% of Democrats agree; 53% of Republicans agree

Oppose regulations

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Chris Christie (R), Carly Fiorina (R), John Kasich, George Pataki (R)

Polling Data: N/A

Doubt man-made climate change

Candidates: Ben Carson (R), Rand Paul (R), Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R), Donald Trump (R)

Polling Data: 22% of Democrats agree; 60% of Republicans agree


Republicans are adamantly opposed to the Affordable Care Act, the signature domestic policy achievement of President Obama’s administration. These candidates want to repeal it. Clinton and O’Malley would like to keep most of the health care overhaul while Bernie Sanders would like to move to a single-payer health care system.

Single-payer health care system

Candidates: Bernie Sanders (D)

Polling Data: 44% of Democrats agree; 9% of Republicans agree

Keep most of Affordable Care Act

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Martin O’Malley (D)

Polling Data: 28% of Democrats agree; 5% of Republicans agree

Get rid of Affordable Care Act

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Ben Carson (R), Chris Christie (R), Carly Fiorina (R), John Kasich (R), George Pataki (R), Rand Paul (R), Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham (R), Ted Cruz (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R), Donald Trump (R)

Polling Data: 11% of Democrats agree; 60% of Republicans agree


The issue of abortion has largely split the candidates along party lines. Republicans have called for cutting off federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Those Republicans who oppose abortion are split over whether to allow exceptions in cases that involve rape or incest.

Support abortion rights

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Martin O’Malley (D), George Pataki (R)

Polling Data: 51% of Democrats agree; 16% of Republicans agree

Oppose abortion rights

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Chris Christie (R), Carly Fiorina (R), John Kasich (R), Lindsey Graham (R), Donald Trump (R)

Polling Data: 33% of Democrats agree; 43% of Republicans agree

No exceptions for rape or incest

Candidates: Ben Carson (R), Rand Paul (R), Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R)

Polling Data: 13% of Democrats agree; 37% of Republicans agree


The Republican and Democratic parties want to follow very different paths on taxes. Democrats want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. Republicans are more focused on lower taxes, although they do disagree about whether to cut tax rates or more fundamentally overhaul how the country collects revenue.

Wealthy pay more

Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (D), Martin O’Malley (D)

Polling Data: 84% of Democrats agree; 38% of Republicans agree

Reduce tax rates

Candidates: Jeb Bush (R), Chris Christie (R), John Kasich (R), George Pataki (R), Donald Trump (R), Marco Rubio (R)

Polling Data: N/A

Support national sales or flat tax

Candidates: Ben Carson (R), Ted Cruz (R), Carly Fiorina (R), Mike Huckabee (R), Rick Santorum (R), Carly Fiorina (R), Lindsey Graham (R), Rand Paul (R)

Polling Data: N/A

Information courtesy of The New York Times

Rand Paul’s Libertarian Movement

Senators Call For Passage Of Military Justice Improvement Act

Rand Paul was considered to be one of the top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. After months of campaigning, however, he has not been able to meet these high expectations. Paul’s performance has many now wondering what happened to the libertarian movement that he was supposed to lead.

Paul approaches politics differently than many of the politicians that we have become accustomed too. Throughout his eight months of campaigning, Paul has pitched himself as an outside doing battle with the “Washington machine.”

“On the left they’re saying they want your guns,” he said. “On the right, they’re saying they want your phone records. We need somebody to stand up to both the right and left.”

Rand Paul entered to 2016 Presidential race with a great deal of momentum. He believed that he could broaden his party’s appeal, hold on to voters attracted to the past insurgent presidential campaigns of his father (former congressman Ron Paul), and peel off support from more traditional Republican constituencies.

Just last year, a Time magazine cover labelled him “the most interesting man in politics.” People on the right even heralded the arrival of a “libertarian moment,” where the Republican Party would fully embrace a small-government agenda steeped in personal freedom.

This was supposed to be his time to shine. Paul was poised to breathe fresh air into the political system.

It appeared Rand Paul was about to capitalize on the momentum when he announced his presidential bid in April. “With your help, this message will ring from coast to coast, a message of liberty, justice and personal responsibility,” he said in his announcement speech. “Today begins the journey to take America back.”

Despite the initially high polling numbers and the fanfare, the challenges that Paul would now need to face were more apparent than ever.

Soon after his announcement, the Washington foreign policy establishment was quickly moving to put an end to his White House aspirations before they really even began. The independent political group launched a $1 million television advertising campaign calling out Mr. Paul’s views on international affairs, which tend to be non-intervention, saying that he is “wrong and dangerous.”

Since these early attacks, Rand Paul has watched his momentum steadily decline.

His decline in support is compounded by the fact that many Republicans have gravitated towards Donald Trump. His supporters, many of whom are new to the political arena, view the New Yorker as someone that is not beholden to either party’s interests. That was supposed to be Rand Paul’s platform.

He was able to get more speaking time in the most recent debate, giving voters more of an opportunity to see what he really stands for. He sparred with a number of different candidates throughout the debate, earning himself praise for his performance.

Paul still believes he has a chance. He still believes in his message. “There have been people with the exact same numbers as we have at the exact same time that have won Iowa,” he said.

At the end of his recent speeches, an audience member asked Rand Paul why Trump supporters should back him instead of the brash businessman. Paul’s answer: “I’m not crazy.”

Unfortunately, at this stage of the campaign, that many not be enough to get his movement back on track.


Paul Ryan Discusses Vision For Congress, Republican Party

Paul Ryan has been elected speaker of the House of Representatives — following the resignation of John Boehner — at an incredibly important time for the Republican Party, and the country as a whole.

Paul Giot of The Wall Street Journal recently spoke with Rep. Ryan about his plans and vision for the future of the Republican Party and how he hopes to guide the country forward. Ryan is hopefull that in the years to come, they can end the gridlock that has plagued Washington. With a Republican controlled House and a Democratic President, it has been difficult to get anything done without controversy.

The United States is in the midst of a new budget, there is increasing tension over the threat of ISIS, and there is disagreement over the Pacific trade pact.

Paul Ryan wants Congress to offer solutions. He understands that the country deserves a choice and the people of this country should have a say in where the country is going. “We should give them the option, the opportunity, the alternatives,” Ryan stated.

This will begin by taking Republican principles and applying them to the problems of the day, which will “show the country a very coherent and clear vision for how we fix our country’s problems.”

Here are a few of the issues discussed in Paul Ryan’s interview.

The Budget

Ryan contends that the current administration has churned out a number of regulations that are “killing jobs, holding back small businesses, and making it harder for working families to get ahead. He believes that Congress needs to take action to combat this, therefore, a priority in this bill will be to deal with executive agencies.

Refugees and ISIS

Ryan, and others in Congress, have called for a pause in the refugee program with refugees from Syria and Iraq because they are worried about member of ISIS trying to infiltrate the refugee population.

Pacific Trade Pact

As Ryan describes, the reason the trade promotion authority is important is “because we need to be writing the rules of the global economy instead of adversaries or countries like China.” This includes everything from intellectual-property to the rule of law and enforceable contracts. According to Paul Ryan, an effective trade agreement will allow “countries to play by our sets of rules so that we have free enterprise, not crony capitalism but free enterprise, as the way that the global economy works.” Ryan would like to see Congress pass a trade agreement only if it reaches and meets the standards that the United States that they stand for.

Republican Fundamentals

For many years the party has stood for free trade and was even open to legal immigration.

However, the candidates for the presidential nomination have presented a number of new ideas that are a shift away from many of the party’s traditional positions. While some believe that the Republican Party is changing in fundamental ways, Ryan does not agree.

“This is not a new schism that just all of a sudden popped up on the front. So this is a big-tent party. I subscribe to the pro-growth wing of the party, which is basically another way of saying maximize economic growth, upward mobility. And legal immigration is good for this country.”

If you would like to read more of the interview with Ryan, please check out the article here.


2016 Presidential Election: Fresh Faces May Create Change, Even Without Holding Office

Yuri Vanetik

The 2016 Presidential election is in full swing and after several months of campaigning we have begun to get a better understanding of each candidate. This presidential election cycle has been particularly interesting, as we have had several several individuals from the private sector throw their name into the ring. These atypical candidates have provided both entertainment and a new voice, during a time in which many Americans are either fed up with career politicians or politics altogether.

These fresh faces within the political arena come at an important time. Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines than at any other point over the last two decades. As shown in the report, Political Polarization in the American Public, an increase in ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy has affected politics, compromise and everyday life.

The study describes that, “ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past.” In fact, 92% of Republicans fall to the the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats fall to the left of the median Republican. In this survey of 10,000 adults nationwide, it was determined that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.

But the problem goes even further, partisan animosity has increased substantially over this period as well. The negative views of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994, expressive a belief that “the opposing party’s policies are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”

These Americans are living in “ideological silos,” referring to the fact that they hold down-the-line ideological positions and this affects both politics are how they live their everyday lives.

The effects of this sharp political divide is clear. Gridlock on Capitol Hill is at a seemingly all-time high. Politicians on both the left and the right are essentially frustrated with the unwillingness of the other party to “compromise,” or more accurately stated, give their side what it wants.

However, these “sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans.” The majority of Americans do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views; these individuals do not believe that either party is a threat to the nation. The reality is that most Americans would rather have their representatives in government meet each other halfway, as opposed to holding out for more of what they want.

The most politically polarized individuals are more active in politics, amplifying the voices of those not willing to compromise. Meanwhile, Americans who are more open to compromise are fed up with “politics as usual” and become even less engaged in the political process. It appears that the contention between the Americans in the “ideological silos” has pushed the Americans who fall in the middle out of the way.

As a result, the candidates in office continue to reflect the views of the political active individuals, creating a vicious cycle or increased ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy on one side and less engagement on the other.

It is too early to tell, at this stage of the campaign season, how effective any of the private sector candidates would be as President. However, these candidates should be viewed as a welcomed addition to the political arena.

Whether it is through a shift in the political dialogue or actually holding office, the private sector candidates have the propensity to help break down ideological barriers and create a driving force for positive change. This shift will hopefully inspire more Americans to reengage in the political process.

In the end, the United States needs a President who has the ability to bridge the gap between the two parties. If the American people who are open to compromise become more politically engaged, than this may actually become a reality.

Take A Look At How Campaigns Are Financed In The United States

In recent elections, campaign financing has been a huge point of contention among candidates and voters. This is because candidates appear to be financed in large part the super wealthy. The New York Times recently published a thought-provoking article, which describes how a group of only 158 families has provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House.

These families have amassed their wealth in an array of industries (although finance and energy lead the pack) and are now deploying their vast wealth in the political arena. According to the New York Times investigation, the families, along with the companies they control, contributed a total of $176 million in the first phase of the campaign. This amounts to nearly half of all seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican candidates.

While both parties have benefited from donations from the high-net-worth families, the Republican party has consistently received much more support. It makes sense, Republican candidates tend to favor eliminating regulation, cutting taxes and reducing entitlement programs. These policies help the super-rich protect and preserve their wealth.

The wealthy donors describe their support of Republican candidates more broadly: the policies look to promote economic growth and preserve a system that would allow others to prosper as well.

However, two-thirds of Americans support higher taxes on those earning $1 million or more a year, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Furthermore, six in 10 favor more government intervention to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

“The campaign finance system is now a countervailing force to the way the actual voters of the country are evolving and the policies they want,” said Ruy Teixeira, a political and demographic expert at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

While Demographic forces have nudged the electorate toward support of the Democratic Party and its economic policies, the wealthy donors use their financial resources to counteract this shift.

You can read more about the Families Funding the 2016 Presidential Election here.

Politicians Should Stop Being Stifled by PC Culture