Recently, Republicans have developed something of an image problem. In a poll taken by the Washington Post and ABC in the weeks following the 2012 election, the party was described by 53 percent of Americans as being “unconcerned with the welfare of the people, particularly those in the lower and middle income levels.”
One of the reasons for this perception is the comments by Republican candidates about their considerable personal wealth. This creates the impression that they cannot relate to the trials and challenges faced by lower income and middle class individuals, as well as making them appear unsympathetic to the financial challenges faced by those in the lower rungs of society. Recent developments in the Republican primary race and data released by the Camping Finance Institute have done little to convince the American people otherwise.
During the last election Republicans chose Mitt Romney, a wealthy white business man, as their candidate. This choice confirmed the perception that the Republican Party was simply a party run by “rich autocrats.” Romney ran during a time of slow economic growth when many Americans were unemployed and the average worker was struggling financially. His considerable wealth made him seem ignorant of the struggles of the average worker, eventually costing him the popular vote. A video in which he dismissed “nearly half the electorate as dependent on government help” didn’t help.
One would think the party would be invested in changing the perception that they only care about the rich. Unfortunately, this problem remains unsolved. The most visible evidence is Donald Trump’s continued dominance in the Republican candidacy race. His dominance establishes him as a major force in the party, meaning he is invariably associated closely with the Republican Party by the public, for better or worse. Trump is perpetuating the impression that the Republican Party is unsympathetic toward the middle class and the poor. But Trump isn’t the only guilty candidate. Other Republicans are doing this in a far more clandestine manner by accepting large amounts of money from other parties, such as millionaires and super PACs. This becomes clear when observing a visual representation published by NPR, using data released by the Campaign Finance Institute.
Almost all of the candidates who had a large percent of their funds come from $1 million donations are Republicans. Even the Republicans whose $1 million donations make up a relatively small percent of their fundraising have a high amount when compared to Democrats, whose $1 million donations only make up around 14 percent of the total money raised. Furthermore, many of the Republican front runners in the race have a larger amount of their budget made up of $1 million donations, with the exception of Ben Carson and Trump.
By accepting these large donations, Republicans are proving that they are the party that is going to look out for the upper half of the income ladder as opposed to the lower half. The large donations make them far more attentive to the interests of the organization that made those large donations, and far less attentive to those who donated less. Some Republican candidates’ difficulty to raise funds in lower income brackets may be an indicator of that reality.
If Republicans continue to perpetuate the idea that they are simply rich individuals who cannot relate and sympathize with middle- and low-income individuals, they risk alienating a large percentage of voters who are suffering through hard times. A good way to change that perception would be to start accepting fewer donations of over $1 million and not waving their material wealth in voters’ faces. An even better way would be to overturn the Supreme Court decision that allows such large donations in the first place.
letters@chronicle.utah.edu
