WASHINGTON -- Three Arkansans are among the top 160 donors of the 2014 campaign, according to data released Tuesday by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Washington-based group, which tracks money in politics, released the names of 310 people who had contributed more than $123,200 toward the 2014 election as of June 30.
Along with the names of well-known political donors like businessman David Koch or investor George Soros are Mountaire Corp. poultry magnate Ronald Cameron of North Little Rock, who has contributed $229,500; Stephens Inc. CEO Warren Stephens of Little Rock, who contributed $146,200; and Stephens Inc. Chief Operating Officer Curt Bradbury of Little Rock, who contributed $150,800.
Each man has already exceeded the more than $100,000 they donated to candidates, political party committees or political action committees in 2012. The amounts do not include money given to outside groups, which is not limited.
Cameron did not respond to messages left at his office Tuesday. Stephens and Bradbury, through a spokesman, declined to comment.
All three men have donated only to conservative candidates and groups. Cameron ranks 23rd on the list of biggest contributors, according to the center. Bradbury is 140th and Stephens is 160th.
Combined, the 310 donors have contributed $49.8 million this election cycle. Marsha Laufer, a New York philanthropist leads the list, giving $384,900 to liberal candidates and groups. Charles R. Schwab, founder of the investment firm, is second, giving $338,900 to Republican candidates and groups.
U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, has received $381,000 and is one of the top three candidates receiving money from the 310 donors, the center reported. Only House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, with $457,000, and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., with $447,000, received more.
The Arkansas donors are giving to Republican candidates and conservative groups across the country.
As of June 30, Cameron had contributed to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Cotton and Arkansas' Republican congressional candidates. He had also contributed the highest amount allowed, $32,400, to both the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee.
As of June 30, Bradbury had contributed to the campaigns of former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Cotton. He also contributed $4,800 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $32,400 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
As of June 30, Stephens had contributed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Republican Senate candidate David Perdue of Georgia, Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.Va., Cotton and Arkansas' Republican congressional candidates. He also gave $32,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court's April ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, individuals could donate no more than $123,200 combined to candidates, parties and political action committees in the 2014 election. The amount changed each election based on the rate of inflation.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court declared that the cap unconstitutionally limited free speech by restricting people from donating to as many candidates as they wanted.
The decision kept the limit on how much an individual can donate to a single candidate, party or PAC, but removed a limit on how many people or groups someone can give to throughout an entire election.
That means people can still give only $2,600 per election to a U.S. House or Senate candidate in 2014, but they can give that amount to as many candidates as they want.
University of Central Arkansas political science professor Gary Wekkin said most voters probably don't know how much campaign-finance laws have changed in the past decade because of Supreme Court decisions.
"I think it is a more serious situation than most Americans are aware of," he said. "Money gets access, money sets the agenda."
He said people who donate more have more access to politicians.
"The simple fact is that there is unequal access. I think that folks without money just count less now than in any time in my lifetime," Wekkin said. "[The ruling] doesn't make it Mr. Smith's America, it makes it Mr. Vanderbilt's again."
But Karen Sebold, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, said the effect of McCutcheon is still unclear.
"The average citizen is not going to be affected by this new ruling. The average citizen isn't giving the maximum amount therefore its not a widespread effect," she said. "It's too early to tell if it's going to change or shift the outcome of a race."
She said voters worry about who influences politicians when money isn't limited.
"Whether or not it's having the outcome we would expect, it is increasing [the] concern about money in politics, which may lead to some people withdrawing from the process," Sebold said.
The number of Americans giving money to political campaigns is already low, especially in years without a presidential race, she said. Removing the limits lets the people who do donate have a greater effect, she said.
"If you roll back those limits, you're just allowing them to spread out their influence in a process where few people participate anyways," Sebold said.
According to the center, fewer than 1 in 400 adults give more than $200 to a political campaign. It is difficult to count the number of people who donate less than $200 because candidates don't have to report information on those donations.
Duke University political science professor David Rohde said there is already so much money spent on campaigns that most people won't notice the individual donor caps have been lifted.
"It's not at all clear to me that this is going to have a big impact," Rohde said.
After the court's 5-4 Citizen's United v. FEC ruling, which found that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited, conservative groups poured money into the 2010 and 2012 elections but didn't win back the White House or Senate, he said.
"The evidence is pretty clear that money doesn't simply buy elections," Rohde said.
But it shapes how people see their government, he said.
"The ruling and the fact that we are awash in money reinforces the idea that politicians are simply for sale, and I'm not saying that's true, but I'm saying that the majority of people believe that it's true and this makes it even more likely that they will believe it. And a democracy in which people believe that is not healthy," he said.
A section on 09/03/2014