the 2016 campaign marks the first<u+00a0>election in which<u+00a0>supreme court decisions removing all obstacles for wealthy,<u+00a0>union<u+00a0>and corporate donors<u+2019> political<u+00a0>spending came into full relief. call it the year of the donor elites, even as voters from the left and the right of the political spectrum were fulminating against the influence in washington of the well-to-do. some 60 billionaires and millionaires accounted for $213 million, or 57% of the $370 million super pacs backing the presidential candidates spent through mid-october, according to an analysis by the campaign finance institute of recent federal election commission filings. roughly 85% of that cash went to support democratic nominee hillary clinton, an<u+00a0>advantage that<u+00a0>countered the conventional wisdom of<u+00a0>six<u+00a0>years ago that supreme court rulings, including in the citizens united case, would give republicans a financial advantage.<u+00a0>the imbalance also stems from gop rival donald trump <u+2019>s unusual financing of his candidacy, including self-funding much of his primary. hedge-fund founder donald sussman gave $21 million to a pro-clinton group and robert mercer gave $15 million to a group that initially backed texas sen. ted cruz and later backed mr. trump. labor unions also donated a collective $40 million to pro-clinton groups. at the same time, small donations to presidential campaigns were cut in half this election compared with 2012. mrs. clinton and mr. trump through oct. 19 collected $159 million from donors who gave $200 or less, the<u+00a0>fec<u+2019>s definition of a <u+201c>small<u+201d> donation. by the same point in 2012, the presidential nominees had drawn $313 million in small donations. a<u+00a0>rasmussen reports poll taken in february found 76% of likely voters believed the wealthiest americans and companies had too much influence over elections. yet an<u+00a0>election that began with former florida gov. jeb bush declaring he had raised $100 million for a super pac<u+2014>much it before he even began his campaign<u+2014>has actually seen spending decline compared with previous presidential elections. through mid-october, presidential campaigns spent close to $700 million, nearly $300 million less than had been spent in the same period in 2012, according to the campaign finance institute. including spending by political parties and in congressional races, the 2016 elections cost $3.9 billion through mid-october, about $300 million less than had been spent by the same stage in 2012. spending by super pacs, meanwhile, grew by about $200 million, as their share of overall spending ballooned to 21.6% from 15% in 2012. while mr. trump<u+2019>s unconventional campaign<u+00a0>accounts for some of that drop, the growing role of technology in campaigns has also played a role. social media and digital advertising have allowed campaigns to contact voters at a far lower cost. mr. trump has used his nearly 13 million twitter followers and his penchant for controversial remarks to drum up media attention without spending a dime, a means of communication of which, he said at the final presidential debate, he isn<u+2019>t <u+201c>unproud .<u+201d> while mrs. clinton<u+2019>s twitter feed may create less news on a daily basis, she has assembled more than 10 million followers and has used the account to attack mr. trump and highlight news coverage critical of him. that allowed her, too, to save money. she spent<u+00a0>about 30% less than president barack obama did in the same period in 2012<u+2014>$450 million through mid-october. also helping the presidential candidates spend less: their allied super pacs. outside groups spent $371 million through mid-october on advertising promoting or attacking the candidates, about $100 million more than by that point in 2012. mr. trump, in particular, has seen a late surge of help from his allied super pacs. two groups, one a nonprofit that isn<u+2019>t required to disclose its donors, last week launched a $25 million ad blitz promoting the businessman and his policies. outside spending also has skyrocketed in senate races, as outlays from the campaigns themselves fell from 2012. super pacs spent $364 million on ads promoting senate candidates this election, double what they spent in 2012. meanwhile, spending by senate campaigns fell by $120 million. democratic and republican national party committees spent about $1 billion through mid-october. that sum is roughly identical to what they spent in 2012, but somewhat surprising, given that in 2014, congress passed a spending bill that allowed parties to raise their contribution cap by a factor of 10. mr. trump<u+2019>s unusual financing of his campaign proved one of the more intriguing elements of the 2016 race, defying election experts who predicted this campaign would be the costliest yet and would see a substantial transfer of power to super pacs from campaigns. the new york billionaire<u+2019>s donations to his campaign fell short of the $64 million independent candidate ross perot spent on his 1992 presidential campaign, about $110 million in today<u+2019>s dollars when adjusted for inflation. mr. trump has donated $66 million to his campaign, according to the most recent records. because mr. trump was late to embrace super pacs, the set of outside groups backing him remained dysfunctional and therefore incapable of taking on core campaign roles, which mr. trump largely outsourced to the republican national committee. mrs. clinton<u+2019>s fundraising prowess allowed her to assemble a robust operation under her campaign<u+2019>s control, while her super pac spent its money in a largely traditional way, on ads attacking mr. trump. and while mr. trump bragged of not having to spend as much as his rivals because of his celebrity status,<u+00a0>in the end<u+00a0>he succumbed to the pressure faced by most traditional candidates in the final weeks. total ad spending by mr. trump and his backers in the last week of the election: about $30 million.
wealthy donors played outsize role this election  - wsj
rebecca ballhaus