Looking at the distribution of the contributions to the major candidates in 2012, it is safe to conclude that the upper class contributed the most funds to the major candidates.
Putting the two scenarios together leads to interesting inferences. The first is that President Obama, an upper class American, was mainly sponsored by upper class Americans in his reelection. Therefore, economic elites had the biggest influence on his reelection bid. The second inference is that the highest economic class also contributed the most to the presidential bids of the other main candidates, who also belong to the highest economic class. Overall, the data shows that the corporate class played the biggest role in the 2012 American elections and prior ones, dwarfing the contributions of the working class. While the working class’ only major contribution is voting, the corporate class vote and also fund elections.
For the pluralists, this data disproves of their notion that power lies with the majority, not with a small band of individuals who have the biggest say because of their economic status. Pluralist often argue that elected American officials, together with interest groups such as consumers and labor organizations, have enough counterpoising power to prove that there is a more transparent, equitable and democratic distribution of power (McKay 16). According to them, power resides with the public, not elitist people and rich corporations at the apex. However, the data provided shows that US economic elites sponsor their fellow economic elites to power. We cannot, therefore, argue that the American government is pluralistic. It is only pluralistic in word but not in deed. The people who contribute the most to presidential elections often hold the most power (McKay 29).
For the class domination theory, the data shows that power in the American government is dominated by the