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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Feb 13, 2010

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

Perhaps if he didn't throw his medals away and call his "fellow" servicemen "war criminals" in congress, what do you think? Nice transition into Bush though, it's never what your candidate did, it's what the other guy does with liberals, and they are still running against Bush in the continuing Obama campaign, pathetic. And they call themselves "progressives" when they can't even progress past the last administration.

on Feb 13, 2010

DoomBringer90
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.

Good answer, very moderate.

on Feb 13, 2010

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.

Well yes that's to be expected, but not because they have a smaller war chest - some people will vote for a party regardless of the candidate (or at least be heavily influenced by it). Other people will vote tactically not for the person they like the most, but for the canditate they dislike the least out of the two most likely to win, because a vote for a no-name is almost certain to be a wasted vote. Maybe having a huge warchest can buy such an independent a fighting chance if they can spend so much money that they can convince voters they have a chance at winning, but it won't be able to guarantee them victory, as you seemed to indicate in your original post:

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

on Feb 13, 2010

Edit: Triple post (forums really playing up)

on Feb 13, 2010

Edit: Double post

on Feb 21, 2010

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.

Ah, you have my apologies. Clearly I am an uninformed idiot, since I am a "defeatist" (what exactly is that?)

Please explain to me why I don't know the whole story and what parts of it I'm missing. Now, if she really were "pissing on her dead sons grave for publicity" this point could actually be argued -if- she had a history of doing things like this. But, she doesn't. She was just an average gal living a suburban life who woke up to the fact that much of your nation is in fact built on a myth and ruled by crooks.

Also, I asked you if you had ever run for office against an entrenced candidate as an independent, and how you fared. Well?

on Feb 21, 2010

Well yes that's to be expected, but not because they have a smaller war chest - some people will vote for a party regardless of the candidate (or at least be heavily influenced by it). Other people will vote tactically not for the person they like the most, but for the canditate they dislike the least out of the two most likely to win, because a vote for a no-name is almost certain to be a wasted vote. Maybe having a huge warchest can buy such an independent a fighting chance if they can spend so much money that they can convince voters they have a chance at winning, but it won't be able to guarantee them victory, as you seemed to indicate in your original post

I'm sorry, this is a rather non-sensical ramble. The proof is in the pudding. Prove me wrong, that statistically speaking better campaign financing doesn't give one candidate a tremendously significant advantage over their competitors.

on Feb 22, 2010

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. 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.

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.

I'm late to this party & have skipped over a number of replies, but what world have you been living in?  Are you really laboring under the delusion that only us little people make campaign contributions now?  Did you not hear that PhRMA dumped $150 million to run ads in support of Obamacare?

Your notion that SCOTUS has unleashed the apocalypse is, what's the word... a tad too apocalyptic.

on Feb 23, 2010

Artysim

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.

Sorry for the late reply, but I did not miss your point, you just missed the house.  In your analogy, the house is the corporation.  But that is not the case.  They are the high rollers, the house is congress.  All too often we see where a member is elected, and then goes against what he promised.  Bettors do not make the rules, the house does, and the house is the government.

See Daiwa's reply for an all too common occurrance and proof of who is the house and who is the gambler.

on Feb 23, 2010

Prove me wrong, that statistically speaking better campaign financing doesn't give one candidate a tremendously significant advantage over their competitors

You're the one making grand statements like how this is the end of a republic etc., - it is for you to prove this statement, it doesn't simply become true because you say so and mean I then have to offer clear proof that it's wrong. I've given a number of reasons as to why your suppositions are flawed, and not only have you failed to respond to them, you've also failed to present any actual evidence yourself, and then expect me to give you loads of evidence.

I know from looking at some numbers analysing the effect of campaign contributions on the outcome of an election a few years ago that they run into greatly diminishing returns, but there's no way I can be bothered to dig around for those sorts of numbers, especially when you haven't bothered spending a second of time providing any evidence yourself.

on Feb 23, 2010

Yes, lets fear corporate America, meanwhile:

Labor: Long-Term Contribution Trends

Election CycleTotal ContributionsContributions from IndividualsContributions from PACsSoft Money ContributionsDonations to DemocratsDonations to Republicans% to Dems% to Repubs
2010* $24,784,875 $109,026 $24,675,849 N/A $22,722,055 $1,853,820 92% 7%
2008* $74,541,868 $1,411,246 $73,130,622 N/A $68,272,996 $6,022,906 92% 8%
2006* $66,426,917 $417,896 $66,009,021 N/A $57,676,912 $8,192,609 87% 12%
2004* $61,581,039 $1,422,022 $60,159,017 N/A $53,729,826 $7,714,363 87% 13%
2002 $96,771,601 $459,329 $60,324,516 $35,987,756 $90,076,049 $6,468,952 93% 7%
2000 $90,211,501 $757,892 $59,036,714 $30,416,895 $84,915,532 $5,081,494 94% 6%
1998 $60,887,779 $308,786 $50,235,250 $10,343,743 $55,886,172 $4,834,182 92% 8%
1996 $64,975,461 $432,541 $55,009,734 $9,533,186 $60,609,518 $4,173,430 93% 6%
1994 $51,085,349 $207,796 $46,438,945 $4,438,608 $48,922,121 $1,997,429 96% 4%
1992 $52,949,193 $313,501 $48,301,434 $4,334,258 $49,642,780 $2,744,232 94% 5%
1990 $41,418,167 $128,932 $41,289,235 N/A $38,324,154 $3,033,122 93% 7%
Total $685,633,750 $5,968,967 $584,610,337 $95,054,446 $630,778,115 $52,116,539 92% 8%

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002. 

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, January 31, 2010.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

on Feb 23, 2010

The above chart displays properly at https://forums.joeuser.com/375674/page/2 if it appears incorrectly, you're viewing from http://artysim.joeuser.com/article/375674/We_the_Corporation/page/3. Try the first link.

on Feb 24, 2010

It still cuts off the last column(s) in the forums, but enough is there to make your point.

on Feb 24, 2010

It still cuts off the last column(s) in the forums, but enough is there to make your point.

Thanks for the feedback Doc. On my PC it looks fine on the forums and lousy on articles. Not sure why, edit won't work for me there either.

on Feb 24, 2010

And this is the reason I want to see contributions coming from an individual citizen as the only legal form of campaign donation.

4 Pages1 2 3 4