14 February 2012

The corrupting influence of great wealth

Excerpts from an article at Salon:
Their wealth has become a demonic force in politics. Nothing can stop them. Not the law, which has been written to accommodate them. Not scrutiny — they have no shame. Not a decent respect for the welfare of others — the people without means, their safety net shredded, left helpless before events beyond their control...

Yes, the results are in and our elections have replaced horse racing as the sport of kings. Only these kings aren’t your everyday poobahs and potentates. These kings are multi-billionaire, corporate moguls who by the divine right, not of God, but the United States Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision, are now buying politicians like so much pricey horseflesh. All that money pouring into Super PACs, much of it from secret sources: merely an investment, should their horse pay off in November, in the best government money can buy...

When all is said and done, this race for the White House may cost more than two billion dollars. What’s getting trampled into dust are the voices of people who aren’t rich, not to mention what’s left of our democracy. As Democratic pollster Peter Hart told The New Yorker magazine’s Jane Mayer, “It’s become a situation where the contest is how much you can destroy the system, rather than how much you can make it work. It makes no difference if you have a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after your name. There’s no sense that this is about democracy, and after the election you have to work together, and knit the country together.”
These gargantuan Super PAC contributions are not an end in themselves. They are the means to gain control of government – and the nation state — for a reason. The French writer and economist Frederic Bastiat said it plainly: “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” That’s what the Super PACs are bidding on.
I can predict from the Pew poll results that my citing Bill Moyers will be a divisive move.  About half the readers here will agree with him, while a significant minority will vehemently disagree.   Those in the former category may want to take a look back on posts which featured his views on health care reform,"wage repression" and "plutocracy," the U.S. failure to ban land mines, and oil as the motivation for the Iraq war.

13 comments:

  1. I had a libertarian friend try to tell me that Citizens United isn't really an issue because spending a lot of money on ads doesn't matter, because people are able to make up their own minds, and all viewpoints (except the far-right and far-left) get heard. Also, what's wrong with negative ads if they use facts?

    Oh, libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the 2012 presidential election, most of the money so far has been spent on Obama:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

    One might argue that this is because he is the definite democratic candidate, and the money has been so far spread among the republican primary candidates. But more money was also spent on Obama in 2008:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

    But overall, as the Salon article suggests, both parties are equally bought:
    http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php

    Given that, it's useful to see who is buying our government. Top source of money, by far, is 'Finance, Insurance, Real Estate'. Is this surprising? Who got a trillion+ dollar bailout recently? What industry does Obama's health care reform most benefit? And whose industry did our government balloon and is still working hard to prop up?

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php

    The president gets the face time, but Congress makes our laws and is responsible for domestic policy. U.S. budget priorities for the future are being shaped now, and the next election will have a huge impact. Who is going to benefit? Well, let's see who is buying congress right now...

    Lawyers, retired, the securities/investment industry, health professionals, real estate, and insurance...
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

    You can bet your puny insignificant dollars that these guys will come out ahead, no matter what any candidate appears to say.

    -Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "For the 2012 presidential election, most of the money so far has been RAISED BY Obama..."

      Fixed.

      Delete
    2. It shouldn't really matter who raises the most cash. They system is still broken no matter who wins this cash race, or the election.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous 12:09 -- I agree that the website says 'raised by', but IMHO that's misleading. The money is not Obama's, and he's not really raising it. It's other people's money, collected by various organizations, and the people are hoping it will buy Obama's election. Thus, they're spending their money ON Obama.

      -Chuck

      Delete
  3. Stan, who cares who disagrees with Mr. Moyers? We all know it's the truth. One of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever.

    Jim in Maine

    ReplyDelete
  4. MStan, you write, "I can predict from the Pew poll results that my citing Bill Moyers will be a divisive move. About half the readers here will agree with him, while a significant minority will vehemently disagree. Those in the former category may want to take a look back on posts which featured his views on health care reform,'wage repression' and 'plutocracy,' the U.S. failure to ban land mines, and oil as the motivation for the Iraq war."

    You want those of us who agree with Moyers to look back at these posts? Why? I should think that most of us who agree with what you just quoted from Salon would also agree with Moyers's views on these other subjects.

    But it sounds as though you think if we read those back posts, we'll change our minds and decide we disagree with him on Super-PACs. I find that confusing.

    Unless you got "former" and "latter" switched accidentally...

    --Swift Loris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I meant it the way I wrote it. I intended to say that those who like/agree with Moyers would also enjoy the old posts, and those who disagree could give them a pass.

      Delete
  5. Someone needs to take a stand and start eliminating the rich who go too far. Then you might have a few more people reconsidering their ethics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More likely they'd use their political influence to press for ever more draconian laws in an attempt to protect themselves.
      Thoughtcrime, anyone?

      Delete
  6. I'll vote for the guy who says "This has to stop" over the guy who says "Of course corporations are people" any day. .5% chance of pulling us back from the brink > 0%.

    I don't care who's saying it; Moyers, Limbaugh, Kardashian, Hitler. If they say Citizens United is stupid and/or evil, I'll agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if they just say it is stupid and evil, but actually agree with it? That's what the Democratic party is doing.

      Delete
  7. The way it was, the way it ain't, the way it may once again be...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wlI9sQPdyQ&feature=player_embedded#!

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...