Read

User menu

Search form

More Top Heavy Than Ever: The One Percent of the One Percent

More Top Heavy Than Ever: The One Percent of the One Percent
Thu, 5/28/2015 - by Russ Choma
This article originally appeared on Open Secrets

One lesson of the 2014 election cycle was that more money came from fewer people.

And a look at the political One Percent of the One Percent of Americans — the top 31,000 or so donors, roughly equal to one percent of one percent of the U.S. population — over the last three elections bears that out: The money coming from this select demographic is increasing and it is leaning more conservative. What’s more, even within the top .01 percent, the donors at the very peak are contributing more and more of the money.

The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation teamed up to take a detailed look at the topmost tier of donors of disclosed political contributions at the federal level.

Among the findings: In 2014, the top .01 percent accounted for just more than $1 billion worth of donations, up from $732.7 million in the previous midterm in 2010. The 61 percent increase far exceeds the rate of inflation or the increase in the election’s total cost, meaning this top group of donors assumed a far greater role in financing the most recent election than the previous midterm. According to OpenSecrets.org data, all donors in the 2010 election gave roughly $3.48 billion, of which the top 32,000 or so paid for about 20 percent. In 2014, all donors chipped in $4.01 billion; the top One Percent of the One Percenters accounted for about 28.6 percent of that.

Even among the top .01 percent, there is a perceptible trend toward the biggest donors shouldering more and more of the cost.

In 2010, it took at least $8,200 in donations reported to the Federal Election Commission to land in this exalted club. In 2014, the entry fee was $8,810 — an increase smaller than the rate of inflation, meaning that it was easier to get into the top .01 percent in 2014. Similarly, the median donation from this group in 2010 was $13,500, while in 2014 it was up to $14,850 – not a dramatic hike. Yet the top .01 percent gave $447 million more in 2014.

As it turns out, the most generous donors among the top 32,000 or so who make up the .01 percent gave more in 2014 than in 2010. The median donation for the top third of this group — roughly 10,400 donors each cycle — in 2014 was $37,600, up $5,100 from the same group in 2010. In 2010, that group of top 10,400 or so donors gave $488.4 million, or about 56 percent of the total donated by the .01 percent. By 2014, the top 10,400 donors gave nearly twice as much — $911.1 million, or roughly 86.5 percent of the donations from the larger group.

Even within the top .01 percent, there is apparently an elite set of donors pulling away from the pack.

Partisan skewing

The .01 percent includes wealthy individuals from both ends of the political spectrum, but there are relatively few in between and the numbers at the extremes are growing. And more money is coming from the right.

The vast majority of donors in this demographic gave overwhelmingly, if not entirely, to one side or the other.

In 2010, there were 12,178 donors in the .01 percent who gave no money to Democratic or liberal recipients at the federal level, and a similar 12,782 who gave no money to Republican or conservative causes. In 2012, a presidential year, there were suddenly 14,672 donors who gave to no Democratic or liberal recipients, and only 10,672 who gave to no Republican or conservative ones.

By 2014, the trend toward greater partisanship had solidified, though the conservatives dominated — a full 15,147 (or almost half of the .01 percent) gave no money to Democrats or liberals, while 13,333 gave nothing to any Republicans or conservatives. There were just 174 donors among the 32,000 in 2014 who gave equally to both sides — one less than in 2010. And the biggest donor who gave to both sides in 2014 was only the 980th largest donor overall. The big money clearly lands on the extremes of the spectrum.

Overall, donations from the top donors numbering .01 percent of the population have moved from favoring Democrats and liberals to favoring Republicans and conservatives.

In 2010, 45.1 percent of donations from this set went to Democratic or liberal recipients, more than the 42.7 percent that went to Republican or conservative recipients. In 2012, the equation changed dramatically, with just 36.5 percent of the group’s money going to the left and 59.7 percent going to the right. By 2014, the .01 percent were slightly more interested in liberal recipients than they’d been in the presidential cycle, but not much — 42.7 percent of donations from these elite donors went to liberals while 46.8 percent went to conservatives, almost exactly flipped from the picture in 2010.

Originally published by Open Secrets

3 WAYS TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT

ONE-TIME DONATION

Just use the simple form below to make a single direct donation.

DONATE NOW

MONTHLY DONATION

Be a sustaining sponsor. Give a reacurring monthly donation at any level.

GET SOME MERCH!

Now you can wear your support too! From T-Shirts to tote bags.

SHOP TODAY

Sign Up

Article Tabs

The world has lost an incredible thinker and doer. I have lost an amazing friend. A void exists where before it was filled with David's optimism, humour and joy.

Kevin Zeese speaks at a rally for Chelsea Manning. By Ellen Davidson.

Kevin fought to bring truth every day. We must not lose this struggle.

To win the climate argument, advocates must show how Covid-19 bailout funds could be redirected – instead of making similar mistakes as the 2008 financial crisis.

The most analogous failure to the impending economic turbulence is the financial crisis of 2008, caused, primarily, by the deregulation of the financial industry.

#MeToo, India sexism, women's rights, sexual abuse

Activists are continuing the fight but are exhausted, balancing careers and a movement, that, to most, has become a personal battle.

The world has lost an incredible thinker and doer. I have lost an amazing friend. A void exists where before it was filled with David's optimism, humour and joy.

Kevin Zeese speaks at a rally for Chelsea Manning. By Ellen Davidson.

Kevin fought to bring truth every day. We must not lose this struggle.

David Graeber at his home in Manhattan in in 2005. A public intellectual, professor, political activist and author, he captivated a cult following that grew globally with each book he published over the last decade.Credit...Jennifer S. Altman for NYT

He wrote about crushing debt, pointless jobs and the negative effects of globalization. And he played a leading role in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

To win the climate argument, advocates must show how Covid-19 bailout funds could be redirected – instead of making similar mistakes as the 2008 financial crisis.

The most analogous failure to the impending economic turbulence is the financial crisis of 2008, caused, primarily, by the deregulation of the financial industry.

The world has lost an incredible thinker and doer. I have lost an amazing friend. A void exists where before it was filled with David's optimism, humour and joy.

Posted 6 days 16 hours ago
David Graeber at his home in Manhattan in in 2005. A public intellectual, professor, political activist and author, he captivated a cult following that grew globally with each book he published over the last decade.Credit...Jennifer S. Altman for NYT

He wrote about crushing debt, pointless jobs and the negative effects of globalization. And he played a leading role in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Kevin Zeese speaks at a rally for Chelsea Manning. By Ellen Davidson.

Kevin fought to bring truth every day. We must not lose this struggle.