The Secret Big-Money Takeover of America

huffingtonpost.com

Not only is income and wealth in America more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years, but those hands are buying our democracy as never before -- and they're doing it behind closed doors.

Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multimillionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily.

No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it's all secret.

But you can safely assume its purpose is not to help America's stranded middle class, working class, and poor. It's to pad the nests of the rich, stop all reform, and deregulate big corporations and Wall Street -- already more powerful than since the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators.

When the Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that corporations have the same rights as individuals, we all feared that this would open the floodgates for big money, both foreign and domestic, to pour into political campaigns.

Indeed, it is pouring in, and we will never know who it's from or how much because those are closely-guarded and absolutely legal secrets.

This cannot be for the benefit of the middle and working classes. We know that during campaigns politicians on all sides promise to meet the needs of the middle class and the poor, but when push comes to shove the truth is the power goes where the money is. Always.

This does not seem to me to be a Democrat or Republican issue, but rather one that unifies all Americans (with the possible exception of libertarians, who believe capitalism should be completely unfettered) and one that we all should be alarmed about.

Mmm, the Huffington Post, Where they don't even know we live in a Republic and not a "democracy". I don't believe campaign money will affect much as many of the elections are being fraudulently manipulated anyway. Big money rules - point taken, and it is worse than ever. France was at a similar point before 1789 we'll see if anything similar follows.
What really bothers me is just how blatant they have become about doing things contrary to the will of the people or the rule of the Constitution. That is a sure sign of trouble to come.

reply to post by Sestias


Here is analysis from more (for me) credible source globalresearch.ca source. Just as starter:

Big business and the wealthy are pouring unprecedented sums of money into the US congressional elections, according to data reported in the media over the past several days. While the lion’s share of the money is going to candidates of the Republican Party, Democrats are also raking in millions, underscoring the status of both parties as political instruments of the financial aristocracy. Much of the spending is fueled by the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, handed down in January, which reversed 80 years of precedent and declared that corporations—as well as labor unions—had the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their favored candidates. While individuals and organizations are limited in what they can give directly to a candidate, there is no limit on what they can spend on their own, as long as the advertising is not directly coordinated with the candidate.

I support deregulation of business, but what would come at their shock is that they shouldn't be receiving welfare either.

Treat all business equal, squash monopolies and provide special privileges to no one. The ones at the top will funnel money for campaigns and politicians that serve their interest while playing the Fiscal Conservatism card, but in reality it is not Fiscal Conservatism but rather welfare to the top. We need to cut off their welfare checks too which include Obama care and all other government bailouts for business, equal playing field should be our goal because that's real capitalism.

They prefer to give their money to candidates that will funnel more money directly to their company and/or their personal pocketbook.

I am against any big interests giving money to our politicians or our parties, no big labor and no big business.

I too support the deregulation of corporations because all too often, that regulation actually shows them favor. The American people have been too "dumbed-down" to even care what the regulations stipulate, thus it is all too often regulated in favor of corporate interests, in direct contradiction to the interests of the people and our country as a whole. When you deregulate business, they become regulated by the market itself and the consumer, as opposed to the government, decides how they should operate and what they can or can't do.

With that being said, deregulation only works in a society that has completely free markets. You can't pick and choose which industry becomes "deregulated" or cherry-pick the stipulations of said regulations by government because as long as the government is showing favor (through regulation, among other criteria), there is an imbalance that tips the scales entirely. This is why the deregulation of the financial industry blew up in our faces. This happened because it was deregulated in a "pick and choose" manner, whilst we lacked a true free-market. It has to be "all or nothing" because anything in between disrupts the delecate balance that is needed for a market to regulate itself.

How does a market regulate itself? Easy, and the benefits and outcome of the [market-based] regulations are much better than any corrupt government and even better than non-corrupt government regulation. I'm not talking about the market regulating itself with an "honor-system" or something to that effect. Instead, I'm talking about the consumer regulating the corporations through the market. As long as the consumer has free choice and businesses are free to start up and offer what they will, the consumer has the power to decide which businesses succeed and which businesses fail. If a company has practices, services or products that don't meet the standard of the consumer or the public as a whole, then the people, consumers and market can choose whichever business does meet those standards and if one doesn't exist, then you have the freedom to create it and get rich in the process.

The problem with allowing government to make those choices, is that the government can easily become corrupt by the money and influences that will eventually shape her, as we know all too well. Instead of the businesses pandering to the consumer, these businesses pander to the government, as the government is the one making the choices, not the consumer. Business will always pander to whoever is going to allow it to succeed.

With a truly free and deregulated [by government] market, the consumer and ultimately the people decide which corporations or businesses succeed and which corporations or businesses fail. This also drastically cuts back on corruption, both from the industry sector and the political sector. It puts the power with the people, inetad of the elites and introduces choice... no, fair choice to the public.

As it stands now, we are forced to patronize certain businesses or not get the product or service at all. It is government regulation and favortism that limits this choice, ultimately making the rich richer, the poor poorer and eliminating power from the people.


--airspoon

reply to post by zeddissad2

Thank you for the quote. It pretty much confirms what I think too.

The article I linked was by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under, I believe, Clinton. That makes him not extremely conservative but I think capable of some objectivity.

reply to post by Sestias


How can you say that it is not a republican or democratic issue when the op-ed you quoted clearly says that ALL the republicans recently voted against a law to stop this lunacy?

reply to post by airspoon


We've seen what happens when markets are almost completely free and almost totally unregulated. These have been goals of the Republican Party since Reagan. Remember the Wall Street meltdown that we (and most of the rest of the world) haven't recovered from yet?

Are you longing for the "good old days" that got us into this depression in the first place?

reply to post by inforeal


I agree it's an issue which the Democrats have taken up enthusiastically. But Democrats, too, can be bought and sold. I'm saying it's an issue we all should be concerned about.

reply to post by Sestias

We've seen what happens when markets are almost completely free and almost totally unregulated.

Actually, we have never seen what a completely deregulated market looks like. Now, I'm going to suggest that you read my above post, as it is obvious that you didn't or didn't understand it. Try again, as I hate repeating myself, especially when it is painfully clear in that post. In my post that you apparently didn't read, I explain how our markets were never fully deregulated and in order for it to benefit the people, it has to be all or nothing. The people don't benefit and the market doesn't and can't regulate itself when our government picks and chooses which industries to deregulate and which regulations to nix. When you do that, you are in effect just regulating through government, even when government is seemingly striking the regulations.

It either has to be all or nothing, where our entire economy is free and deregulated or the an embalance occurrs that prevents the market from regulating itself. Again, we have never seen a true free market here in the states, not in our life times. We have never seen the market completely free from government regulation.

What happened with the financial industry, is that government only regulated in favor of the industry. In fact, that's all government regulation is anyway, to where they benefit the corporations they are supposed to reign in, though usually only benefitting the big-boys, the ones who buy off the government and practically write the regulations. Yeah, that's right, corporate interests are writing those regulations in the first place. That's the problem with allowing the government to regulate instead of the consumer, market and public as a whole.

Again, read my above post, as I explain it more clearly there.


--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Sestias

 

Again, we have never seen a true free market here in the states, not in our life times. We have never seen the market completely free from government regulation.

Well we can't now with the advent of binary code equating capital in the modern world. Unless we force the world to drop digital finance all together.

YOu say all or nothing - I very much agree with that

Unfortunately many people equate sprinkled deregulation with complete -

This is often a justification to legalize quasi criminal concepts, I wish we could stop doing this

Originally posted by DoctorG0tti
This must be a lie.

NOPE

impact of this;

www.thetakeaway.org...

One of the greatest problems that exist in the market place today is the grant of charters for incorporation. Corporations are separate legal entities that gain special privileges, and have liabilities separate from the members of that corporation. This effect of limited liability fosters unethical behavior. A single individual who is the sole proprietor of their business assumes full responsibility and liability for their business. This forces that proprietor to act in ways that are considerate of the community he, or she, serves. Their very survival depends upon the community they serve. Conversely, the corporation holds no responsibility to the communities of which they serve, and instead are answerable to their stockholders. The stockholders are a disparate group of people who have no interest outside of making a return off of their investment.

Making a return off of an investment is, of course, paramount if investments are to have any validity at all. However, when the investor has no responsibility for the business they invested in, and only care about financial gain, regardless of the effect that gain has on the over all economy, problems will no doubt arise. The only hope of keeping these concerns reigned in is some sort of government oversight, which is demonstrably hopeless.

Corporations can not exist without the legal charter granted them by government. The reality of the situation is that governments create corporations, and being the creators of these corporations, they hold the ultimate power of regulation over them. This is why governments are keen to create them to begin with. People preexist governments and do not need permission to exist from governments in order to exist. Corporations, on the other hand, very much do need permission to exist. This makes the corporation completely reliant upon government. It becomes a symbiotic relationship between corporation and government, both needing the other in order to usurp the inherent political power, which at all times belongs to we the people.

Charters of incorporation can be revoked, and yet, they rarely are. The market place does not need corporations in order to thrive. Viewing a free market as if corporations are a part of that free market is folly. The very existence of corporations demands regulation since their existence is artificial. A truly free market cannot exist as long as corporations, legal artifices, proliferate within that market. Further, free markets cannot self regulate as long as liability is limited for certain business, while not at all limited for sole proprietors. The surest way to ensure a self regulatory free market place is one where every proprietor is held accountable for their actions, and held accountable by the people who ultimately decide whether they will buy that proprietor's goods or services or not.

Even in a free market, there will always have to be some form of limited government regulation. However, that limited form must come in the guise of laws that prevent monopolies from forming. Monopolies are antithetical to free market principles, and cannot be allowed to exist. The current farce of "too big to fail" policies flies in the face of the anti-trust laws that have long existed in the United States. It was not sole proprietor's who got "too big to fail", it was corporations that became "too big to fail", and they became "too big to fail" in spite of the anti-trust laws government was entrusted to enforce. Government betrayed that trust because they have the special relationship they do with corporations.

The corporation has become what John Kenneth Gailbraith coined; oligopolies. This form of economy is demonstrably bad for the public, and the reasonable answer is to end the strangle hold oligopolies have on the economy by doing away with corporate charters. Of course, far easier said than done given that few people are keen to do away with the corporate structure.

Originally posted by Sestias
huffingtonpost.com

Not only is income and wealth in America more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years, but those hands are buying our democracy as never before -- and they're doing it behind closed doors.

Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multimillionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily.

No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it's all secret.

But you can safely assume its purpose is not to help America's stranded middle class, working class, and poor. It's to pad the nests of the rich, stop all reform, and deregulate big corporations and Wall Street -- already more powerful than since the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators.

When the Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that corporations have the same rights as individuals, we all feared that this would open the floodgates for big money, both foreign and domestic, to pour into political campaigns.

Indeed, it is pouring in, and we will never know who it's from or how much because those are closely-guarded and absolutely legal secrets.

This cannot be for the benefit of the middle and working classes. We know that during campaigns politicians on all sides promise to meet the needs of the middle class and the poor, but when push comes to shove the truth is the power goes where the money is. Always.

This does not seem to me to be a Democrat or Republican issue, but rather one that unifies all Americans (with the possible exception of libertarians, who believe capitalism should be completely unfettered) and one that we all should be alarmed about.

edit on 9-10-2010 by Sestias because: (no reason given)

So what else is new? The repubs will take over soon and they'll have their big chance to prove they know the correct policies. We are already "The Corporate States of America". Of business, for business and by business.... They'll spend their whole first couple of years investigating democrats and invading new countries.

So kids, if you don't want social security or federal money for any State or local projects then go ahead and vote republican because it is they who have declared that government is already too big.
Go ahead, vote republican and cut your families' futures. Oh you can still keep your guns but you'll be completely on your own with them. And all the oldsters will be kicked out of their government assisted retirement facilities. Don't think so? Surprise coming.

tt

tt

reply to post by airspoon

As it stands, I did read your post.

I just don't share your rosy picture of laissez faire capitalism, or totally free markets.

We had something very similar to that during the nineteenth century in the industrial revolution in England and the U.S. I'm speaking of the period of the "robber barons." At that time there were a very few very, very rich people and roughly half the population was dirt poor. Social conditions were deplorable. There were no laws governing the safety of the workplace or the sanitary conditions of the food supply or the marketing of drugs, for example. Millions just died in poverty if they were injured on the job, or died from bad food or patent medicines or natural causes if they could not afford doctors. In those days there was very little government intervention, if any. These conditions did not resolve themselves but were later regulated as a result of public outcry. Changes certainly did not occur because employers believed it was profitable for them to improve the lot of their workers.

There was nothing then, and would be nothing now, to stop monopolies. Yes, an enterprising person might rise from abject poverty to start a competing industry but in a capitalist society it takes money to make money. And even then the chances are good that the inventor or retailer would not be able to undersell a monopoly like Wal-Mart.

An example today of completely free markets might be the former Soviet Union. There is virtually no government regulation or oversight of commerce anymore. As a result people are killing each other over market shares and profitability.

I can see that a totally free market might as easily result in a return to a semi-feudal society--with its small number of landed gentry and a majority of peasants, each baron fighting another for possession of land and resources--as it might result in the utopia you picture as free-market capitalism.

As the old saying goes, each nobleman is descended from a gang of thieves.

reply to post by Sestias


Absolutely they can, have been, and are bought and sold. But I think we need to begin voting on issues.

It is clear the Republicans are 100 percent for the rich, and that is no exaggeration. They voted down [ all of them] a law that would stop outsourcing of Jobs.

The Democrats sometimes at least to some degree want to pass laws that aid the small man.

reply to post by Sestias

We had something very similar to that during the nineteenth century in the industrial revolution in England and the U.S. I'm speaking of the period of the "robber barons."

The term "robber barons" is bandied about by far too many people who do not truly understand the propaganda of that term, and the actual historical relevance of that time. There are indeed, modern historians, (with a decidedly Marxist agenda), who denigrate the Captains of Industry of early American capitalism. Historians such as Charles Beard, Richard Hofstadter and Matthew Josephson have nothing nice to say about people like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, arguing that they built their fortunes on the back of the laborer, without ever acknowledging the actual effort these people made themselves, as if their own effort had no bearing on their fortunes, and as if that effort did not amount to any contribution to society. It is an extremely biased perspective that refuses to acknowledge their contributions, and only focuses on their flaws. Were these men flawed? To be sure, they were, but look at your own flaws, and how you ascribe a certain societal condition to the 19th century as such:

At that time there were a very few very, very rich people and roughly half the population was dirt poor.

Do you actually believe that isn't a problem today? Charles Hurst and his text book; Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences, on page 31, offers this statistic: The richest 1% hold 38% of the privately held wealth in the United States, and on page 36, argues that the bottom 90% hold 73% of all debt. Of course, I have no doubt that you will counter that this is due to "deregulation", and then you will somehow attempt to equate this "deregulation" as being tantamount to laissez faire capitalism. However, the so called "deregulation" of the past few decades has nothing at all to do with laissez faire capitalism, which is an actual state of no regulation, not a limited amount of regulation, or the more correctly described less regulation than that of the early 20th century, and even that only describes less regulation in certain areas, where massive regulation continues in others. "Deregulation" is, quite simply, doublespeak for new rules regarding regulation, as regulation of the market is the norm.

Social conditions were deplorable. There were no laws governing the safety of the workplace or the sanitary conditions of the food supply or the marketing of drugs, for example.

Given the massive increase in the marketing of drugs today, your argument for regulation is laughingly obtuse. Indeed, Congress insisted that pharmaceuticals begin placing warning labels on certain psychotropic drugs used to handle depression, that warn that the drug itself may cause suicide attempts! That's your government at work for us, pal. Drugs prescribed to handle depression are causing some people to attempt suicide, and instead of simply outlawing such a drug as harmful, regulation is used to protect the sale of these drugs placing the onerous responsibility of any suicidal tendencies squarely on the patient prescribed the drug. That's your precious regulation for you!

Where the FDA will use gun toting agents to attack a private single dairy farmer for selling raw milk, and will exert their force in numerous ways against private individuals attempting to survive off of their own labor, E. coli breakouts are still reported by the CDC regularly, the most recent being May of 2010:

# The latest case count is 26 confirmed and 7 probable cases related to this outbreak from MI, NY, OH, PA, and TN.

# Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O145 is an emerging bacterial pathogen that can produce the same illness as E. coli O157, but the O145 serogroup is infrequently reported.

# The current outbreak is the first reported foodborne outbreak identified in the U.S. due to this pathogen.

Later reporting that:

Multiple lines of evidence have implicated shredded romaine lettuce from one processing facility as a source of infection in this outbreak. This evidence includes the identification of the outbreak strain of E. coli O145 from an unopened package of shredded romaine lettuce obtained at an institution that received product from the processing facility linked to the outbreak. Case-control studies in Michigan and Ohio found significant associations between illness and consumption of romaine lettuce processed at the same facility that processed lettuce consumed by ill persons in New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

www.cdc.gov...

Take note that this CDC report has taken great pains to not name the processing facility that they believe is the source of the E. coli, but do make clear it is an institution, as in corporation, as in a huge business with limited liability for their actions. This is your precious regulations at work, sport. Protecting the actual company responsible for spreading the E. coli outbreak, while their sister agency the FDA is busy busting small dairy farmers for selling raw milk to a few people who want raw milk.

Millions just died in poverty if they were injured on the job, or died from bad food or patent medicines or natural causes if they could not afford doctors.

Your histrionic digest of history would be amusing if it weren't such a prevalent view of the 19th century and the industrial revolution. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has never known laissez faire capitalism, although the 19th century was considerably less regulated than it is today. In spite of the Marxist historians used as indoctrination tools in U.S. public schools, there are differing accounts of that time frame:

Never mind the low wages and harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty -- it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. As proof -- the enormous growth of the European population during the nineteenth century, a growth of over 300 percent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 percent per century.

freedomkeys.com...

Economic growth was non-existent during the centuries 500-1500 -- and per capita GDP rose by merely 0.1 percent per year in the centuries 1500-1700. In 1500, the estimated European per capita income was roughly $215; in 1700, roughly $265.

www.capitalismmagazine.com...

There was nothing then, and would be nothing now, to stop monopolies.

There are indeed anti-trust laws set in place to prevent monopolies from happening, but how do you explain the current "too big to fail" policies that justified TARP and the bailout of large corporations? GM was one of those corporations deemed "too big to fail" and is known as one of "the big three" regarding automobile manufacturers. Do you have any idea how much money GM has invested in squashing smaller American competitors in the automobile industry?

Yes, an enterprising person might rise from abject poverty to start a competing industry but in a capitalist society it takes money to make money.

It takes money to make money in a socialist society too. This is why taxation is so high in a socialist economy.

And even then the chances are good that the inventor or retailer would not be able to undersell a monopoly like Wal-Mart.

In spite of the fact that there are anti-trust laws in place intended to prevent such a thing, but who enforces them? This is your vaunted government at work.

An example today of completely free markets might be the former Soviet Union. There is virtually no government regulation or oversight of commerce anymore. As a result people are killing each other over market shares and profitability.

You would be hard pressed to find any reference to support that claim.

Economic reforms in the 1990s privatized most industry, with notable exceptions in the energy and defense-related sectors. Nonetheless, the rapid privatization process, including a much criticized "loans-for-shares" scheme that turned over major state-owned firms to politically-connected "oligarchs", has left equity ownership highly concentrated. The protection of property rights is still weak and the private sector remains subject to heavy state interference.

en.wikipedia.org...

Russia today is not an example of a free market. It is, however, a good example of what happens to a nation after the fall of a state imposed communist economy.

Democracy is a failed system

What is happening now to the USA is the same thing that has happened in Africa, South America and the fall of the Roman empire. The politicians simply looted the treasury until the government went bankrupt and collapsed.

Ultimately who really controls the elections are the people who own the media, so the media simply gets a puppet like Obama or Bush, they spam ads and publicity incessantly.

Everybody already knew that Bush + Obama were going to win due to having 5x more screentime than the people they ran against.

The worst thing about a democracy is that it induces the population to support the government no matter what they do. The people will never rebel, never attempt to change the system instead they just blame themselves for voting for the wrong guy.

If a country like China decided to do something like the Iraq war you would see something like this

www.youtube.com...

on a mass scale, but when the USA invades and kills one million the people will never dare oppose the government because they blame themselves rather than the government.


If you want to know why this particular riot happened in China, one guy was killed by drug dealers

english.ntdtv.com...

The uprising began when police tried to take away the dead body of an employee of the Yonglong Hotel. The deceased is a 24-year-old cook named Tu Yuangao.


Mr. Tu died mysteriously at the hotel on June 17. He fell from a third story window and was pronounced dead. However, there was no blood at the scene of the fall, and residents say that upon close examination, there were seven bloody holes in his head. Residents speculate that the cook had been beaten or tortured to death first, and then thrown from the third floor window.

reply to post by Returners


The outcome of the riot

en.wikipedia.org...

A spokesman from the Shishou city government said experts from the state-run Ministry of Public Security and Tongji Medical Institute carried out an autopsy, which ostensibly confirmed that Tu committed suicide.[8] Tu was cremated at 4 am on 25 June 2009. The government promised the deceased's family a total of 80,000 yuan, including 30,000 yuan from the Yonglong Hotel, 35,000 yuan from the Shishou government and 15,000 yuan from the local Gaojimiao township government.[8] Following the incident, an editorial in the People's Daily on 24 June called for both local government and the mainstream media to provide greater "information transparency" in the immediate aftermath of incidents that could trigger public unrest.