A FEW DOZEN WEALTHY FAMILIES ARE CONTROLLING THE PRESIDENTIAL MONEY WAR
|| By FITSNEWS || We generally have little use for The New York Times, but there was an excellent report in its Saturday editions about the concentration of money in politics.
According to a report by Nicholas Confessore, Sarah Cohen and Karen Yourish, “fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.”
The concentration of campaign cash is even more pronounced in “Republican” circles.
“Just 130 or so families and their businesses provided more than half the money raised through June by Republican candidates and their super PACs,” the Times report revealed.
Unreal …
Spending on the 2016 presidential election is likely to exceed $5 billion – more than double the 2012 election, according to a report in The Hill. Of that, an estimated $1.5 to $2 billion alone could be spend on behalf of Hillary Clinton – the presumed Democratic nominee.
Hmmm … wonder what sort of favors she’ll dole out for that sort of cash.
Obviously we support the right of individuals and corporations to donate whatever they please to political candidates. That’s free speech. What we oppose is politicians turning tricks for those treats.
Want to eliminate the undue influence of money in politics?
It’s simple. Stop electing whores …
73 comments
oh no!
tell me it’s not true!
This is ground breaking journalism! Those with the gold, rule. This has never occurred in the annals of history until now!
I… can’t get my head around this…
My world view is *shattered*
“It’s simple. Stop electing whores …”, but the pimps pay for the whores to have all that that airtime to proclaim that they are the only true “conservatives”. Given all the mouth breathing voters in this state they can’t help but believe it is true and pull that strait “R” ticket no matter what.
If you want to make money,you have to work gor it.I’ll prove to you that it’s possible to get good income VERY fast.If you are insecure with your daily income and want to make money fast,do your health and your future a favor by checking out The Step by step simple way.
I have Made 19952 Dollars monthly already,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour.
………………………………………………………………….
((Go To???????? http://bit.do/LatestCareersT22
………………………………………………………………………….
GO TO THE ABOVE LINK AND LOOK BRIEF DETAILS CLICKING ANY LINK INSIDE WEBPAGE
??????????????????????????????????????????
Dude, oligarchy isn’t that bad.
Yet, nobody’s on here talking about Bernie Sanders…
What about Bernie Sanders:?
Maybe you should Google? For one, he isn’t bought. Two, he’s willing to tax the corps. Three, he wants to invest in free education. Four, he will stand up to private prisons that enslave so many of our young and poor.
Or, you could keep doing the same shit expecting different results.
Well I agree the nation is mired in shit and needs a change, a change to socialism would make our shit quagmire into a shit funnel.
Socialism has failed over and over again, usually in less than 100 years.
Love when people throw out the ‘Socialism’ tag without even looking at what Bernie is proposing. Much of what he is suggesting, like higher taxes on the wealthy and free college education, where policy when this country prospered. It is only when ‘Freedom’ took over that we lost these and we landed where we are at today.
“The only thing free is the cheese in a mouse trap.”
– Quote from a dear older friend who suffered through Soviet Union Communism before getting to America in the early 90s
Your would do well to develop friendships with older Russian immigrants and let them teach you a thing or two about this dream you subscribe to. Or if you prefer, a recent Venezuelan, they have great stories also.
Or maybe you could develope a friendship with someone from Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, Norway, or Finland, Ireland,or Australia They have great stories also, and they kicked our ass in both per capita income and best place for business for the last few years.
But continue your fantasy that we must choose between pure Capitalism and pure Communism. Since both have always failed miserably.
Where/when has there been pure capitalism?
Just name one place.
The Dark Ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire and before the Renaissance. Is one example. America from the end of the Civil War to about 1910 was pretty close. England during the early years of the Industrial Revolution was fairly close.
There are actually many more attempts throughout history. But there is a reason you feel that way. Societies based on pure Capitalism do not survive very long. They turn into Oligarchies, and then Plutocracy; or they collapse into revolution. If they are very lucky the evolve into a Democracy with elements of Capitalism and Socialism.
“The Dark Ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire and before the Renaissance. ”
LMAO!
You mean Feudalism?
I’m actually embarrassed for you. I thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation.
Feudalism is an example of Plutocracy. It developed later in the dark ages, but was a result of the failure of pure Capitalism.
(Phase 1) After the collapse of the Roman Empire, there was no government in much of Europe. People survived on the land. Trade developed between villages and people became more successful. People, then began selling their services to the most successful, who accumulated more an more wealth.
(Phase 2) Wealthy people hired people to defend them from thieves. Later more greedy rich people hired people to take things from other people. Then a protection services racket evolved, where you paid a powerful person to protect you, your family, friends, and ultimately your village from marauders and other gangs.
(Phase 3) As the people selling protection became richer and richer, they built castles and hired more and more mercenaries. The more men you could afford the the more powerful you became. Finally, the people who could afford the most protection and ultimately aggression, declared themselves the government over the area they protected and demanded payment for protection instead of offering it as a service. (much like the Mafia). Ultimately they claimed ownership of the land they protected and those who worked it became serfs. That is an example of the evolution of pure capitalism into Feudalism
“Feudalism is an example of Plutocracy. It developed later in the dark ages, but was a result of the failure of pure Capitalism.”
Ok, rather than debate whether your version of history is the accurate one, I’m just going to direct people to the Wikipedia page and let them decide if your revisionism is correct or not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
Further, I can only assume you find elements of Marxism attractive based on your word usage like “greedy” (vs. self interest for example) and your push for some hybrid of socialist, so it is in that assumption I specifically point you to the following viewpoint attributed to Marx under the entry above:
“Karl Marx also used the term in the 19th century in his analysis of society’s economic and political development, describing feudalism (or more usually feudal society or the feudal mode of production) as the order coming before capitalism.”
Notice the word “BEFORE”.
Further in a direct quote from Marx, you see the following:
“in pre-capitalist systems it was obvious that most people did not control their own destiny — under feudalism, for instance, serfs had to work for their lords. Capitalism seems different because people are in theory free to work for themselves or for others as they choose.”-Marx
Plutocracy is an extreme form Capitalism. Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. Both result in the rule by a few of the many and both are equally cruel. We need to strive for balance. Our country has been most successful when we have a balance..
There is nothing in your Wikipedia article that disputes anything I have said. I don’t know what your fixation with Marx is. I am not a Marxist and I don’t agree with Marx on much of anything. Capitalism and Socialism have existed since we moved from hunter gathers to farmers. They are not 18th and 19th century inventions.
“There is nothing in your Wikipedia article that disputes anything I have said.”
Then you haven’t read it, or my comments, or you have failed to comprehend.
Anyone reading this exchange should follow up on my link.
Feudalism is just end-stage capitalism.
Tom, well said. Coincidently, those nations you speak also are much happier than us. They also provide such luxuries as guaranteed maternity leave. Oh, the humanity!!!
Sure, it’s great. You get maternity leave. Hooray! You also get to live in the “people’s house” just like all your other neighbors. You also get to drive the “people’s car,” which is coincidentally just like all your neighbors’ cars as well.
And….(drum roll) you get all of this regardless of your work ethic or performance/attendance, or value to your work. Isn’t like grand?
Again, Bernie’s ideas are just too complicated for the likes of people like you. My maternity leave was just one example of how he has actual ideas to help real people.
You think this country is soooo fair and capitalistic? Where so much wealth is held by so few? And where so few control politics? None of the examples you speak are considered by Bernie. He is just suggesting fair, common sense solutions.
Just go back to listening to the Trump’s and Cruz’s of the world and fear brown people, since that is all you can handle.
(1) “You think this country is soooo fair and capitalistic?”
– Nope. Don’t extrapolate my comment. Term limits.
(2) “Where so much wealth is held by so few?”
– Nope
(3) “And where so few control politics?”
– Nope. Read my earlier comment about term limits
(4) “Just go back to listening to the Trump’s and Cruz’s of the world”
– Again…silly inferences to which you cannot find me quoting such a statement.
I just love the idea of mandatory maternity leave. Have a baby = Get leave (mandatory). Forget analytics or application. Make a rule and enforce it with an iron fist. Pay no attention to the facts or circumstances surrounding the event.
He’s a strawman factory. At some point in time you’ll have to ignore him.
Indeed. Retiring from this thread sounds like a fabulous idea. I’ll await Johnny “Logic” on a future post.
“You think this country is soooo fair and capitalistic? Where so much
wealth is held by so few? And where so few control politics?”
This is the end game of capitalism. People look at cronyism as some sort of perversion of capitalism, when in fact capitalism drives cronyism. Eventually the few at the top will discard most of government, leaving only the parts that serve them, and we’ll all live under feudal lord oligarchs calling the shots.
It really is “us vs. them” but we are finally losing. We put up a good fight in the 1900s but the good fight is going to come to an end soon. Half of the working population will cheer when the house of cards falls, they will think we are heralding in a new age up until they realize the game is even more rigged against their kids and grandkids.
Most socialists have super low self esteem and are rarely productive in a economic sense, which is why they love the concept of socialism.
It’s the perfect philosophy for losers.
Great reasoning skills there mate.
Thank you. I thought so too. Glad to see you’re in agreement.
You obviously know nothing about the countries being discussed. Have you ever been outside of the US. Its hard to discuss something with people who don’t know what they are talking about
But we can’t afford guaranteed maternity leave.
But we can’t afford guaranteed sick leave.
But we can’t afford to help pay for health insurance.
But we can’t afford to give family medical leave.
But we can’t afford to pay overtime.
But we can’t afford to pay a minimum wage.
But we can’t afford employees collectively bargaining.
But we can’t afford to provide a safe working environment for our employees.
But we can’t afford to not hire 8 year olds for a few pennies an hour.
But we can’t afford letting people go on strike, so we have to shoot them when they do.
But we can’t afford doing without slaves or indentured servants.
I wouldn’t call Krugman a friend but
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-13/nordic-crisis-waiting-to-happen-puzzles-krugman-assessing-debts
No society is perfect. Each country will have its ups and downs. They may have to adjust some things over time. God knows we can’t judge after the almost total collapse of our economic system. My point was not that we need to become Norway or Denmark. My point is that we need to strive for a workable balance between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism (communism.) Freedom will not exist under either system. Our country would not survive in any form we would care to have under either system.
Todays world is not the 19th century. We are a technology driven society. That requires a healthy, educated population. That is what business wants. That requires we assure our people have access to top notch education and health care. That also requires our country have excellent infrastructure. That is why those countries have been kicking our ass for the last ten years.
“My point is that we need to strive for a workable balance between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism (communism.) Freedom will not exist under either system.”
On that I can agree. We need to get our heads out of the clouds and work on realistic options. Everyone I’ve talked to has described the same thing, starting out with a beautiful dream that morphs into a nightmare.
Just go on any forum with lots of Europeans and they’ll tell you, they look at America as some kind of cave man land. Show them a medical bill for tens of thousands of dollars and they are absolutely flabbergasted. Tell them how far into debt you have to go just to get a four year degree and their jaws will drop. Tell them how far up shit creek you are if you lose your job and they’ll just shake their heads.
Americans just say “Yeah well at least I don’t have to pay those high taxes” as they file for bankruptcy and lose their house and go into income-based repayment when the slightest unexpected life event knocks them off their feet.
Actually, the USSR and Venezuela you speak of consist(ed) of countries where a very few control most everything. Where else do I do see this? Lemme think?
It gets really old listening to old farts bring up USSR any time any tiny speck of liberal policy is even mentioned. Calm down McCarthy.
Uh, you are aware that McCarty was proven to be correct in his assessments by Soviet documentation after Glasnost ? You probably aren’t, bless your heart.
“Love when people throw out the ‘Socialism’ tag without even looking at what Bernie is proposing.”
He’s a self proclaimed “Socialist” you dumb douchebag.
Does someone have to hit your over the head with a Hammer and lop your balls off with a sickle for you to “get it”?
If simple tags make you feel comfortable, so be it. Now go back to playing with your crayons and looking at shiny objects.
Ok, you’re right. When Bernie declares he’s a Socialist I should say, “No, really, what are you?”
Seriously, your commentary is better than a political joke writer/cartoonist could dream up.
Bernie is the man and actually has plans and policies that would work for the vast MAJORITY of Americans. Unfortunately, he doesn’t use dumbed down scare tactics or appeal to the worst characteristics of society, which won’t help him win over the weak-minded conservatives.
Ah…the joy’s of socialism. Perhaps we can further pursue interests similar to China and Venezuela?
Reminds me of the Milton Friedman quote when he visited China in the 1960s.
Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
Yeah, let’s all listen to Milton, he worked such great wonders in Chile.
“Obviously we support the right of individuals and corporations to donate whatever they please to political candidates. That’s free speech.”
The idea that money=speech is at juxtaposition to the idea that we all have EQUAL rights. Obviously we do not all have equal money, ergo we do not have equal ‘speech’. Officeholders are elected by ALL of us, to represent ALL of us. The Koch brothers can SAY or WRITE anything they want, but the idea that they can provide unlimited and often undisclosed funding to any candidate(s) in any election(s) is anathema to Democracy. It is not anything like what the Founding Fathers intended, and will be our downfall.
It’s simple. Amend the Constitution.
So.. electing a Trump will help? One of the 400 families…
I trust Trump more than shadow group put together by the Koch Brothers. Those guys are out to take over the government, for their own benefit.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/koch-brothers-palm-springs-donor-list
Money is not speech!! You do not have the right, nor should you have the right to buy politicians. If money is speech, then we have already lost. We already live in an oligarchy, because only the rich have a voice. In a society where money is speech, the poor are mute, and the middle class speaks with a whisper. Neither will be heard above the screams of the rich.
The Koch Brothers alone have vowed to spend 1 billion dollars on this campaign, to get the candidate of their choice. In exchange, they demanded the Republican Presidential candidates come to California and explain to them, what they will do to get that money. That is corruption pure and simple. And that is just one group of Republican donors, and not even the ones who are supporting the Republican establishment.
Now you say Hillary is getting 1.5 billion from someone, and 5 billion will be spent.
What has happened in this country is a disaster. Both sides of this election are being purchased, This has to stop. We must have campaign finance reform or America will no longer be worth saving. Citizens United is turning out to be the most disastrous court decision in history. Only people who sell political advertising and politicians cannot see that.
Remember, the US supreme court said the Congress could pass a law to identify donors. But, the Republicans killed the Disclose Bill.
The irony is how hard conservatives fought for Citizens United and were gleeful when SCOTUS bestowed constitutional person-hood on corporations as “people” with free speech rights and privileges.
Translation, Koch brothers can go all in….
Nope.
Translation: George Soros, SEIU, NEA, etc. can go all in.
How about we stop having politicians work for cash like strippers and be given set spending limits for campaign spending?
You, or “we” as you put, have very little control over government. It controls us, not us them.
Vote out one turd, & another steps right into a system designed to keep on truckin’, & contrary to popular belief the label matters not.
Huge influxes of cash probably won’t corrupt politics.
Probably.
“Koch brothers can go all in”
Also known as “balls deep”. (and that includes the other oligarchs Boome listed below too)
‘Great nations are simply the operating fronts of behind-the-scenes, vastly ambitious individuals who had become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery.’
R. Buckminster Fuller
But, your sponsors the Koch brothers – and, their bag man Howie Rich – ONLY fund whores.
What good is a politician to them if he/she won’t do what they instruct?
Well, would you slip a stripper some ones if she didn’t show you the goods?
Blame the prostitutes, not the johns! We can’t help ourselves!
Here are the top 5 donors to Tim Scott for the 2014 election cycle:
Club for Growth $79,550
Goldman Sachs $61,549
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $57,500
Koch Industries $57,200
Boeing Co $52,949
…and this differs from other politicians, how?
Here’s another interesting fact. 2 + 3 = 5.
Tim Scott must have talents known only to the oil bidness. Despite being a freshman Senator who has sponsored very few bills (rank 100 of 103), his career take from oil interests is exceeded only by Cornyn, McConnell and Roberts in the Senate. Inhofe is close, but he is a committee chair of Environment and Public Works, and parrots Climate Change denial.
Scott is co-sponsor of S.1279, which would allow drilling virtually up to the SC coast if the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor say it is OK. The oil bidness gave $74,000 to Haley in 2010, and she is a member of the Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition, a group founded and funded by oil interests to promote drilling in the Atlantic. She will be gone soon, but Jeff Duncan has gotten lots of oil money lately — over $50,000 in 2014, and $114,900 since elected to Congress.
You miss my entire subtle jab that every single politician is given money by a special interest group and reciprocates that gift through their vote.
Sure, I’ll play along and allow you to put the microscope on Scott. Would you care to shed light on any of the other 534 members of congress?
Nah…see, you merely point this out from a particular issue of which you are more concerned (i.e. oil-drilling).
I really need to start taking whatever it is that you fellas are taking and living on cloud 9 to actually believe there are only some politicians that are interested in themselves more than others.
On an entirely separate matter, your use of Scott being a “freshman” Senator is more to the core of this problem. It should not matter that Scott is a freshman. Indeed, politicians become corrupt when they can suck on the gov’t tit for a lifetime and continue to seek re-election. Install term limits and strip away this unconstitutional seniority BS that allows a 5-term senator (who is equally elected by his constituents) to silence a “freshman” who may be vigorously advocating on behalf of those who elected him….(or may be corrupt all the same, who knows?).
I wonder whose call Tim would take. Charles Koch who wants to be allowed to pollute the environment more, or Jane Smith, who lives on Maple Street in Columbia and whose son suffers from asthma, exacerbated by pollution.
Money is speech my friend and Koch is speaking. Mary, you need to speak a little louder. Why don’t you start and asthma pack and donate some money to my campaign. Then I may be able to hear your voice.
Excuse me. Then maybe I will be able to hear your voice. I guess I should have put another speech dime in before hitting the arrow. The computer could not hear me.
Did you see “Tim”, name tag and all, on the Koch brothers dais this past weekend?
I saw the picture.
Made me want to vomit.
He’s a bit expensive but a token black guy is worth every penny.
(1) “Obviously we support the right of individuals and corporations to donate whatever they please to political candidates. That’s free speech. What we oppose is politicians turning tricks for those treats.”
Nope. That is not “free speech.” Rather, this is foolishness and a blatant manifestation of your ignorance on the matter. Citizens United was nothing other than a bastardization of current corporate and election law. “Free speech” is NOT present in a marketplace where the opportunity and incentive exists for one to stifle another’s political speech by the mere stroking of a check. You’re living in an absolute fantasy world to think that your support for “unlimited freedom of campaign contribution” is analogous to one’s First Amendment rights.
(2) “Want to eliminate the undue influence of money in politics? It’s simple. Stop electing whores …”
Nope, again!. Want to eliminate the problem? Term limits! Remove not only the incentive, but the ability to corrupt.
Who else runs?