Tom Steyer planning $100 million campaign push - Andrew Restuccia. Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is laying plans to go big in the 2014 election. The former hedge fund manager is hoping to spend $100 million — $50 million from his personal fortune and $50 million from other donors — to make climate change a top-tier issue in the election, The New York Times is reporting. Continue Reading A person close to Steyer confirmed the $100 million figure to POLITICO but cautioned that it is not a ceiling. Steyer and his group NextGen Climate Action have emerged over the last year as a major player in the growing world of money and politics, a realm in which court decisions such as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling have tossed out much of the old rulebook. (PHOTOS: Climate skeptics in Congress) He spent millions on the 2013 Massachusetts Senate and Virginia governor’s races, helping Democrats Ed Markey and Terry McAuliffe prevail, and has become one of the most outspoken opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline.
Sheldon Adelson spent $93 million on the 2012 election. Here’s how. Ad Spending in Battleground States. 2012 Presidential Campaign Finance Statistics. Super PACs.
2012 election priciest to date -- $4.2 billion raised so far - Nov. 5. The cost of federal elections is going up. WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) Never before has so much money flowed into federal races. Much of it comes from the unlimited fundraising power of so-called independent groups, including super PACs. By comparison, around $3.8 billion -- an eye-popping amount on its own -- was raised for the 2008 election. In the presidential race, those supporting President Obama have spent $931 million so far, while those supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney have spent more than $1 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
A big chunk of the money is coming from the uber-wealthy, according to election experts. Some 149 super-rich donors gave $500,000 or more, contributing $290 million of the funds raised so far, according to analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity. When all the numbers roll in, some $6 billion could be spent on the election. What has that money bought? Related: Elizabeth Warren vs. What's the difference between soft and hard money campaign contributions?" In the simplest terms, "hard money" is from political donations that are regulated by law through the Federal Election Commission. "Soft money" is money donated to political parties in a way that leaves the contribution unregulated. The difference boils down to a few crucial words and one administrative ruling. In 1978, the Federal Election Commission issued an administrative ruling that the funding rules established by law only applied to political campaigns, and not to "party building" activities.
The commission didn't go into great detail about what constituted a party building activity, basically defining it as something that didn't explicitly tell people to vote for a specific candidate. The ruling was issued, and political parties uniformly ignored it until 1988. Because soft money is not regulated by election laws, companies, unions and individuals may give donations in any amount to a political party for the purpose of "party building. "