Published on February 11, 2010 By Artysim In Politics

"Well doctor, what have we got- A Republic or a Monarchy?"

"A Republic, if you can keep it"

-Benjamin Franklin, 1787.

The above mentioned Republic is, for all intents and purposes, finished. It was done with the flick of a pen by your supreme court last month. For anyone not aware, the determination was made that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to support political candidates in their run for office.

The fallacy of this should be obvious to a five year old. The most profitable and powerful corporations on the planet can now buy the politician of their choice and pretty much guarantee that they'll get into office. There's a direct correlation between a candidate's campaign coffers and how well they do in an election.

Once in a blue moon a little guy who's vastly underfunded (which usually means an independent) wins but in the long run this is a statistical anomaly, much like the numbers behind a casino.

It's no secret that all politicians are ultimately bought and paid for, that's why there's over 30,000 lobbyists on capital hill. But now, the gloves have come off. Let's look at what this portends for the future.

Over the last two years ExxonMobil's profits were 85 billion. Not revenue, profit, so after all their expenses and operating costs were covered they literally had 85 billion sitting in the bank and wondering what to spend it on. In the same two year period, total spending on the 2008 federal election (including 2007), from all sources was 5.2 billion. Emphasis on all-sources. That covers all the donations to democrats, republicans, independents coming from literally millions of private citizens, corporations and special interest groups.

If ExxonMobil wanted it badly enough, this single company could choose to spend 12 percent of their annual profit on the party (or even single candidate) of their choice and in doing so equal or outspend ALL campaign contributions to all parties and candidates in years previous. If a single company were to provide 5 billion dollars in funding to a president who got into office, how likely would that president be to support legislation that may be in the interest of the people but would hurt Exxon's bottom line? He wouldn't, because that would literally be career suicide.

Of course this is a ridiculous scenario. I highly doubt that Exxon would spend 5 billion on a single candidate, but what if Exxon, General Electric, Pfizer and a couple other heavyweights decided to each kick in 1 billion dollars each to the same canditate or party? For Exxon that would be a paltry 2 percent of their profits, going to ensure that they'd get a candidate who would never fuck with them on emissions, environmental legislation or a multitude of other measures that would be beneficial for the nation but harmful to the company (maybe there might be a little added pressure from higher up on the golf course for a certain judge to take a harder line on a lawsuit regarding a little ol' oil spill a while back)

What if AT&T kicked in 500 million in contributions? Would Washington dare to bite the hand that feeds them and enact tougher requirements on the company for net neutrality and minimum service levels for customer's broadband?

What if General Dynamics and a handful of other major defence contractors threw together a cool one or two billion to throw to the "hawk" candidate of their choice? Never mind the pure comedy of taxpayer dollars flowing from public coffers to private hands, then back to individual politicians to ensure that the public money would keep flowing or even increase. What if these contractors were producing lemmon weapons systems.... years behind schedule, massively over-budget, massively-over complicated and therefore breaking down far too easily in the field, and ultimately under-performing on a real battlefield? Would those contracts and defence appropriations get canceled if it would mean the loss of billions in campaign finance? I think not.

I hope you get the picture. But it's not all bad though. The farce is just beginning, as we all know what happens once a corporation feels they own someone or something for shelling out big wads of cash..... branding!

Just picture it- a session of congress will be almost indistinguishable from NASCAR, what with the TIDE and VIAGRA logos that will be plastered all over the company-approved outfit the politician will have to contractually wear (in exchange of course for a boat-load of money)

And of course, we can't miss out the re-naming of buildings that have been bought by corporate money;

"The President will be making a special address to the nation tonight, live from the Exxon-White House..."


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Feb 12, 2010

Artysim
What this does is provide the opportunity for a small number of people, with a large sum of money, to essentially choose who will get into office through their donations.

Not it does not.  They can spend a billion, but they only get one vote.  Just like the guy who does not spend a dime.

Of course no single company or person will just throw away billions in a hell-bent effort to elect a single politician. But between corporate and private donors, those with the big dough will massively outweigh the donations from your average worker or a mom-and-pop small business.

And that was changed how by the ruling?  It was like that since the beginning of time (in every country that has free elections).  But instead of saying "Sponsored by Exxon" the ads said "Sponsoner by Moveon.org".  Same thing.  Same people really too.  No difference.

This will create the conditions wherein, the government will essentially be completely beholden to their sponsors- if legislation is passed that will hurt HMO's profits, they can simply give boat-loads to another guy who will undo that legislation on their behalf. And therein, you will have a government that is ruled by corporations and the wealthy by proxy.

Some claim this is already the case (lobbyist anyone???).  Again no difference.  But while partially true, it is not totally true.  We do have to take the good with the bad since no system is perfect.  But then our fundamental difference (yours and mine) is that I do not trust anyone to be dictator for life (a necessity if we are to have some clown who decides who can spend money and who cannot), you apparently do.

on Feb 12, 2010

DoomBringer90

.  Define ok?  What do  you mean by ok?
ok as in acceptable. sure the little people outnumber the corporations by a massive amount but the corporations are the only ones whose opinion really matters when you are financing your campaign.

Oh, like Moveon.org - that "corporation"?  One of the biggest 527s out there!  And they make sure your opinion does not matter?  Or if you like them, how about "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth"?  Another 527.  And what do all these groups have in common besides very little?  They all get their money from little guys and they spend BIG bucks on elections.  Of course they do not have the inherant controls of a corporation (like stock holders and the SCC), but they spend them!

Again, eliminating donations by anyone but private individuals allows for the private individual to donate where they feel like donating.

They tried that.  You know, the McCain Feingold abomination?  And what did it get us?  See above.  All it did was change the name of the sponsors.  not the money or method

And now a direct question for you. Since when has money been speech? If a company wants to support a candidate while trying to play the "free speech" card, the only thing they should be allowed to do is issue a statement to the press stating that they support FOTM candidate1.

Money has been about speech since the first newspaper sold the first ad.  And that was back in the founders days.  You cannot force a private enterprise to run ads for free, so you had to use money (a common exchange).  Just because the medium has changed in the last 200 years, does not mean the intent has.

on Feb 12, 2010

Artysim
And yet, in almost every single case he who has the largest campaign coffers, on average, wins. Again, it's just like a casino- statistically the underdog will indeed win from time to time but the house always wins ultimately.

You blew that one Arty! 

Do you gamble?  I don't because I work too hard for my money.  But many people do.  And so does big business.  But you will not find them at the roulette wheel if Vegas.  instead, they bet intelligently.  They size up the field and then bet on the winner!  That is why the winner has the most money most of the time!  Because people figured he was going to win, and bet on him!  The money does not choose the winner, the money flows to the front runner!

you put the cart before the horse.  And those few times the underdog wins (discounting when a rich guy is pumping his own money into it)?  They lose!  There is no sure bet in life.

on Feb 12, 2010

 

DoomBringer90
they dont need to vote to get laws that are oppressive to everyone but them passed, they just have to fund the FOTM politician

That would be call a lobbyist and it is a much more effective use of dollars than a campaign contribution that is limited to a certain amount. One just needs to look at recent events to see how easily campaign promises are broken. Corporations will always do what is best for them and what has already been in place is working just fine in that regard.

Remember the recent cosmetic surgery tax increase? The doctors that perform face lifts, tummy tucks, and botox injections sufficiently influenced the Democrats to change the bill and pass it on to the tanning salons, small businesses with little to no lobbyists to counter. I'm sure many of these tanning salons supported Obama through contributions. So where would you put your cash? Into hope and change promises or where it will get results?

The proof is in the pudding my good fellow. Why, look at the last election when Cindy Sheehan ran against Nancy Pelosi and lost. Sheehan had a good run, and interestingly enough her stance on many issues were far more in-line with public sentiment than Pelosi's were. But, ultimately Pelosi won mostly because she had a ridiculously massive war chest in comparison to Sheehan.

Arty if you're trying to make a point this one is a terrible example. IMO Pelosi and Sheehan are both nuts. What got Pelosi re-elected is that she is the nut with a established record of getting her district a piece of the federal pie. She is/was just as big a defeatist as Sheehan was. So take your average liberal San Fransisco voter, you can vote for the person against the war, plus support the rest of the liberal agenda, or you can take a chance on an antiwar activist and with the rest of her agenda an unknown variable. I'm sure most hard core liberals were appalled that she would allow her son to join the military in the first place (yes that is the districts mentality). They voted for their nut. Perhaps if she had an Obama like charisma, the voters would have when with her inexperience, like they did with him. She didn't. That was a no-brainier. Money spent on the campaign would not have made a big impact. Does the number of "vote for me" signs you see influence your vote so easily?

Some goes for G.W junior- his campaigns were excellent at selling the image of the down-home country good 'ol boy,

IMO not so much that, than Gore (who thought he was owed the presidency) and Kerry's uninspired campaigns. BTW they are all spoiled rich kids, even Obama. Unless you fall for the hard-luck "fatherless" stories, then in that case most kids live in Hawaii, go to school in Indonesia, and attend an Ivy league college.

on Feb 12, 2010

Well I give up. Its obvious that those of you who like shitting on the little guy won't change your opinion on this matter so I'll just stop trying to convince you.

on Feb 12, 2010

the determination was made that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to support political candidates in their run for office.

The fallacy of this should be obvious to a five year old. The most profitable and powerful corporations on the planet can now buy the politician of their choice and pretty much guarantee that they'll get into office. There's a direct correlation between a candidate's campaign coffers and how well they do in an election.

Only to a point. You run into diminishing returns, meaning that when you start spending loads of money, any extra money doesn't make that much difference. Also in no way does it mean you can buy a politician - they aren't elected by money, they're elected by votes. If people think that they're just a puppet of a big company that's bought them, they're not likely to give them many votes. Also what correlation there is isn't going to all be attributable to money increasing votes - a popular candidate likely to succeed is going to have an easier time raising funds than someone thought to have no hope of winning, because what point is there in throwing away your money on a no-hoper when you could get a small bit of influence by supporting the popular candidate?

In short, money helps give you some influence, but it doesn't give you control. Fortunately with the internet the ability of the media to hold politicians to account has greatly increased, since even if the main news companies ignore a newsworthy story there's likely to be some blogger or small media agency who can make the story available to people all over the world with relative ease.

on Feb 12, 2010

DoomBringer90
Well I give up. Its obvious that those of you who like shitting on the little guy won't change your opinion on this matter so I'll just stop trying to convince you.

I believe you are under an misconception. If the government is small it's much harder for them to shit on you. If you feel corporations are shitting on you, well then I'd like to visit your cave (which makes it pretty hard to own a computer) because you wouldn't dare support those evil corporations by purchasing their wares, that would make you hypocritical, right? If the tone of this thread is disturbing to you, there is another thread called "the GOP plan", perpetuated  by a liberal member of JU. There he doesn't allow many opinions that differ from his own, or that he can't manipulate, and anything right of socialism it terrible. You might find that more suited to your tastes.

on Feb 12, 2010

In short, money helps give you some influence, but it doesn't give you control. Fortunately with the internet the ability of the media to hold politicians to account has greatly increased, since even if the main news companies ignore a newsworthy story there's likely to be some blogger or small media agency who can make the story available to people all over the world with relative ease.

Excellent point. Knowledge is power, but you'd think more folks would look a bit deeper than they do.

on Feb 12, 2010

"the GOP plan"
I just watched that.. americans are nuts. THAT is an official add?!? Aside from everything else, wanting the other party to fail and thus blocking decisions is something that both do when they have the opportunity. Ridiculous.

As for this issue, I had wondered before how this would change elections. I think the american way of voting is totally overblown and outrageous and that you should get an election reform and have a direct vote. BUT I have been told that that would be not a good solution because the US is big and that it is tradition and would be unfair if only the big states recieved campaign attention etcetcetc. Others pointed out that private donations are already a fact of life and that this decision wouldn't really change much.

I am curious how the elections in the fall will look like.

on Feb 12, 2010

"the GOP plan"

I just watched that.. americans are nuts.

I mean't the member's thread on JU not the video, sorry should have been clearer on that.

on Feb 12, 2010

Hard as it is to believe, I find Mumble just as nuts as the rest of you, although in certain situations his views line up with mine, just as in certain situations yours line up with mine.

on Feb 12, 2010

IMO Pelosi and Sheehan are both nuts.

And again, you're completely missing my point. I don't give a good nickel about your opinion of either candidate (by the way, Sheehan is one of the bravest people I can think of.... when was the last time you ran for office against an entrenched incumbent and won a significant chunk of the votes hmmm?)

The point is, with more funds on your side you can ensure that your voice will be heard louder than the other guy's. You can run a more sophisticated campaign where in more people go door to door, bigger speeches and rallies are held, and of course, this cannot be emphasized enough, image management. With lotsa money you can make a devil look like an angel and do the reverse for the other guy.

Money spent on the campaign would not have made a big impact. Does the number of "vote for me" signs you see influence your vote so easily?

Oh Nitro, did you miss the part where I said "don't think for a second that I'm only talking about tv commercials and lawn signs?" If you sincerely think that that's all a campaign's funds pay for then you are a moon-bat and I cannot help you. It's not just an attempt to make your candidate look great but to make the other guy look like a slime-ball. Kinda like that whole thing where Kerry was made to look like a slime ball for having the audacity to go see combat in Vietnam and get wounded (but never mind the GWB during the same period was in the air national guard and hardly ever showed up... by far, much more manly then getting wounded in pansy combat, right?)

you put the cart before the horse. And those few times the underdog wins (discounting when a rich guy is pumping his own money into it)? They lose! There is no sure bet in life.

And you're completely missing my point Dr Guy, so allow me to elaborate. I was referring to Casino's in particular, not gambling in general. Casino's, statistically speaking, always win in the end. That is why they are always profitable (until of course the number of patrons coming through the doors starts to dwindle, but that's another matter entirely)

This is why, casinos almost literally have a licence to print money.

And so it goes with campaign financing. Go back and pull up the numbers- except for the odd once-in a blue moon good ol' fashioned underdog win, history has already proven my point for me- the most well financed candidate usually wins.

on Feb 13, 2010

Go back and pull up the numbers- except for the odd once-in a blue moon good ol' fashioned underdog win, history has already proven my point for me- the most well financed candidate usually wins.

Even assuming you're correct about the most well financed candidate usually winning, that doesn't by itself prove your point:

A well organised candidate with a well planned election would, all else equal, be expected to raise more money. They'd also be expected to have a better campaign (without that money) and better chances of election than if they were disorganised and running a poor campaign. In this case the increased finance is in part a symptom of their electoral success, not the sole cause

Similarly as I mentioned earlier, a popular candidate expected to win will find it easier to attract finance, and hence the finance is again in this case partly a symptom of their electoral success, not a cause.

Finally, your proposition based on history from that comment alone would suggest that you could just need to have a bit more money than the other candidate - that is, your finance needed to increase your chances of winning would be relative to your opponent - and hence spending vastly more than them might not actually make a big difference (hence allowing unlimited finance for campaigns wouldn't have much impact unless both candidates were already frequently hitting the cap).

on Feb 13, 2010

Finally, your proposition based on history from that comment alone would suggest that you could just need to have a bit more money than the other candidate

Well, that's an assumption on your part. Again, employ a little common sense. I'm not talking about a democrat going head to head with a republican- both of those candidates will have massive coffers that are at least in the same ballpark.

What I -am- talking about is a no-name independent going up against the democrat or republican who will have a massively larger war chest than the no-name. Right off the bat, the no-name pretty much doesn't stand a chance. Statistically speaking that is. Go ahead, prove me wrong!

on Feb 13, 2010

Sheehan is one of the bravest people I can think of....

    you and the other defeatists here, many that wouldn't give squat for the freedoms they enjoy.

I find no bravery in pissing on your dead sons grave for your own publicity. You obviously don't know the whole story. Read something besides the liberal propaganda.

4 Pages1 2 3 4