Posts Tagged ‘democracy’

Plutocracy Rules

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

Maybe this is why so many independents are planning to vote Republican this year—they watch too much TV.

A couple weeks ago The NY Times reported on how a supposedly non-profit group is funding the upcoming election thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court.

Americans for Job Security, investigators found, had helped create the illusion of a popular upwelling to shield the identity of a local financier who paid for most of the referendum campaign. More broadly, they said, far from being a national movement advocating a “pro-paycheck message,” the group is actually a front for a coterie of political operatives, devised to sidestep campaign disclosure rules.

“Americans for Job Security has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country,” the staff of the Alaska Public Offices Commission said in a report last year…Americans for Job Security avoids disclosure by reporting all its revenue as “membership dues.” It claims more than 1,000 members. But a review of its tax returns shows membership revenue fluctuating wildly depending on election cycles — similar to the fund-raising of political committees that escalates during campaign season.

Meanwhile tea party nitwits, who believe Americans for Job Security is some sort of grassroots organization, vigorously  join with their bosses in preserving tax cuts for millionaires  while cutting schools, public health or anything else associated with government (except for the military).

Michael Luo and Stephanie Strom report in the New York Times:

Interviews with a half-dozen campaign finance lawyers yielded an anecdotal portrait of corporate political spending since the Citizens United decision. They agreed that most prominent, publicly traded companies are staying on the sidelines.

But other companies, mostly privately held, and often small to medium size, are jumping in, mainly on the Republican side. Almost all of them are doing so through 501(c) organizations, as opposed to directly sponsoring advertisements themselves, the lawyers said.

“I can tell you from personal experience, the money’s flowing,” said Michael E. Toner, a former Republican FEC commissioner, now in private practice at the firm Bryan Cave.

There are no hard figures about corporate financing of elections because they no longer are required to disclose their donations.

Jonathan Martin of Politico using internal Democratic data reports that as of 2 weeks ago pro-Republican organizations had paid for a total of $23.6 million worth of ads compared to $4.8 million for Democratic-aligned groups. Over the next four weeks, GOP groups have $9.4 million worth of TV ads reserved across 40 districts compared to $1.3 million in five districts for Democratic groups.

Now that the supreme court has eviscerated campaign finance rules, there are no constraints on corporate cash flowing to conservative causes. I suspect this is happening all across the country. We no longer live in democracy; we live in a plutocracy in which business interests can spend any amount they wish to control political ads on TV.

Democracy vs. Plutocracy

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

The battle for California Governor has now been joined. One way or the other we will be rid of the odious Schwartzenegger. But there is no guarantee the next Governor will be better

As Robert Cruikshank wrote today:

Republicans will do what they are told by their corporate masters. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina won their primaries because they spent an enormous amount of money to tell Republicans that they should vote for CEOs because they’re smarter than everyone else and more likely to beat the Democrat this fall. That’s it. […]

Thus, the issue in California this fall will be clear. It is a battle between corporate wealth and democracy; between tax cuts for the wealthy or better schools and roads.

Jonathan Taplin is fed up with this:

In the good old days of Tamany Hall politics, an enterprising politician could buy a vote for a 50 cent beer. Meg Whitman’s 1,101,528 votes in the California Republican Governor Primary came at the cost of $77 per vote, most of the money coming from her own fortune.

So what is she willing to spend in the general election? $150 per vote?

This is either an obscene indulgence of a bored woman’s egomania or some kind of dystopian vision of the future of American politics in the post Citizen’s United era, where money really does equal speech.

I have a modest proposal. As a part of their obligation under the Federal Communications Act and in return for their free use of the nation’s airwaves, all broadcast stations should be obligated to give an equal number of free 1 minute advertising slots in the 30 days before a general election to the candidates of any party that garnered more than 10% of the vote in the previous election. This would apply to all statewide offices (Senator, Governor, etc).

Otherwise, any pretense that America is a democracy and not a plutocracy is a sham.

Bad Day for Democracy

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

For anyone who takes democracy seriously, today was not a good day. It looks like health care reform is dead for now, held hostage by a minority of 41 Senators who see fit to abuse Senate rules to prevent majority rule.

And the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling held that restrictions placed on corporate campaign contributions are unconstitutional. Corporate influence on campaigns, already substantial, will now know no limits. Politicians will be wholly owned subsidiaries of Big Pharma, Big Banks, and Big Oil.

The ruling is philosophically absurd. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, claimed that restrictions on campaign donations by corporations is a unconstitutional abridgement of their freedom of speech.

But corporations are not persons. Human beings have rights such as freedom of speech because we have desires, thoughts, and the self-awareness to care about their expression. Rocks, coffee cups, and footballs don’t—and neither do  corporations. The nonsense about corporations being persons is a legal fiction devised solely for economic purposes in the late 19th Century, primarily to shield individuals from liability.The individuals who own and work for corporations already have free speech rights. The Supreme Court’s interpretation effectively grants corporate speakers extra rights both as citizens and as corporations.

Corporations were created by the government—why can they not be regulated by the government?