Tags
campaign finance reform, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Politics, Supreme Court of the United States
The late not so great US of A. The country that turned into a corporation and had a revolving door boardroom of like-seeing people. Total dedication to pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Giving lip-service to the Christian right, purged of it’s bothersome ethnic, religious, and racial minorities.
Imploding in a last gasp internal war between the greedy and the more greedy.
A vast underclass of disallusioned workers who learned too late that the pie was never meant for them.
A military treated to various hedonistic delights in return for which they insulate the wealthy from the mob, who beg for food.
Sound familiar?
I see that as America’s future. I surely do. And I don’t think of myself as much of a conspiracy believer.
Back in January the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, that the government could not limit corporate funding of individual campaigns, claiming that to do so denied its 1st amendment right to free speech. Essentially, corporations were declared persons for purposes of the constitution.
No rational constititutionalist of course would ever argue that this was part of the founders intent, but no matter, judicial “activism” only depends in the end on whether you like the decision or don’t.
But this is only part of what may be an insideous and ongoing plan to take over all of government.
Now, I am aware that many would argue that that has already happened. What with all the K Street shenanigans which pass for “lobbying,” one can make a good case that the country is already firmly under the control of the business community.
But a few other things are most troubling at least to me.
One is the present state of the economy. Two things here. One is that by all the endices I’ve seen, most of corporate America is doing quite well. They are cash heavy, at least those large corporations. Yet they are not hiring.
The second thing that interests me is the fact that banks are still refusing to make small business loans to those who desperately wish to expand their businesses and hire new workers.
To me, these things seem related. And conspiratorial in goal.
Many would argue that nothing stops the pursuit of money on the part of enterpreneurial America. I agree, to a point. I do think that they can delay their money fetish just long enough to reach a greater goal: namely the election of a more favorable government which will allow them to pursue their goals in a more regulation-free way.
So, it seems to me that this gives incentive to banks to refuse to loan, and to big corporations to refuse to hire, all for the real purpose of making the Obama administration look as bad as possible going into the fall election cycle.
I certainly don’t think that corporate America is beneath this kind of strategy. Once upon a time, I would have thought that all but a handful of politicians would have cried foul. No, in today’s climate, especially among the GOP, I can see them easily going along with such a plan. Indeed, I can fairly see John Boehner and Mitch McConnell laughing and joking with glee every time the jobs report comes out.
No pain and sadness at millions of people out of work and struggling to raise they kids in some kind of decent home. I see most Gopers in callous disregard for the average American out there.
But it gets even worse than this. And thinking about it is what prompted this post.
We have before us an unprecedented (at least as I recall) number of candidates running for public office, pouring in literally MILLIONS of dollars of their own personal wealth. This is happening in Florida (Scott), California (Whitman) and Connecticut (McMah0n).
Once upon a time, we were taught that anyone could run for office. Anyone could rise to be President. That is increasingly not the case any more. Wealth buys all that TV time that is now essential to success. And some people are obscenely wealthy and prepared to use large chunks of it in pursuit of their goal of winning.
Perhaps for some it is merely an ego trip. But I suggest that for many, it amounts to a determination to change Washington into a more business friendly environment (as if it could be more so than it is). And this frustrates and inhibits the ability of the people’s voice to be heard.
Indeed, what with complaints about judicial “activism” and calls for impeachment, voting judges out whom you don’t agree with, and the like, we are soon to lose any semblance of a representative government controlled by checks and balances as OUR FOUNDERS INTENDED.
Ironic isn’t it? But it is now apparent that there is a pattern. The issue of founders intent is raised to object to what one dislikes, and ignored when we wish to subvert the very document itself.
I’m prepared to be shown that my logic is faulty here, but it does seem curious how all this somehow fits together. If indeed we are in the midst of those who are deliberately attempting to subvert our economic recovery to insert their claws more deeply into the fabric of America, then we have much to be concerned about.
And similarly, we need to look at the issue of whether we can allow any candidate for any office to spend outrageous amounts of money, even if it is their own, in pursuit of winning. When the playing field is not level, then there is no fairness.
What do you think?
Related Articles
- Senate GOPers block vote on campaign finance reform (americablog.com)
- It’s All About The Money: Bennet-Romanoff Race Waged Over Corporate Cash (huffingtonpost.com)
- “Report: Campaign spending in state judicial elections more than doubles since last decade” and related posts (taragana.com)
- Rebecca Abrahams: Document Hold Filed Against U.S. Chamber of Commerce & American Crossroads For Alleged Money Laundering, Insider Talks (huffingtonpost.com)
- Another Collapse Scenario (economicnoise.com)
- New Campaign Will Spend up to $15 Million to Push Public Financing of Elections (fdlaction.firedoglake.com)
- Editorial: Walk the Talk on Campaign Finance Reform (nytimes.com)
- Target’s PAC donation a wake-up call for reform (salon.com)
- Sandra Day O’Connor’s New Judgment: Judicial Campaign Reform Is Necessary (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Sherry, you raise two main issues here. One is about campaign “reform” or any other rubric one wants to use to describe how the American people can agree to restrain candidates from spending their own fortunes, or fortunes that they must barter themselves to raise, on their mere election. My experience in the past decade or more is that appears to be the main credential one needs to be anointed by either major party. If the candidate also stands for something principled, that is good too, but if he or she has the morals of a failed used car salesperson, it doesn’t seem to matter. How one fixes that, when the very people who were elected in that fashion are the ones that are required to draft the legislation to get it done is a conundrum for which I have no answer.
The second issue is tricky. Those who are now in at least the middle management levels and beyond of corporations have only—assuming they have read a book—an historical knowledge of the Great Depression and indeed most only a dim memory of the last serious Recession. They have, then, never been there before and now they have. If they are not manipulating the economy, surely something I would not put past the bankers, then they are frightened that this is not over and it will happen again. Experiencing what we have been through since 2007 and perhaps before, is much more potent than reading about 1932 or hearing war stories about the 1980’s.
Corporations are indeed from what I read cash “heavy.” They have trimmed inventories, adopted “just in time’ delivery practices, and found that they can still profit, many obscenely, with far fewer employees. Unions, except in certain professions, are largely irrelevant so that countervailing force has all but disappearing. Consumers too, are saving at the greatest rate in decades. Credit card debt is down by 50 per cent from the early 2000’s. So those that are working, that have decent retirement benefits, who are not underwater in home equity, have adopted the same approach. They are cash heavy. Who suffers from all this? Those that are unemployed, underemployed and those that would be hired if the banks would lend and the consumer would spend.
I am generally an optimist, but I see no future in this economy. It will grow, albeit very slowly until those who saw their 401 (k) become in two weeks less than half its value in 2008, have the belief that it is not going to happen again. Corporations will hire temporaries, save their benefit packages, cut their cost, and hang onto their cash. Banks will continue to require 20 percent or more down and a credit score of more than 760 for a home loan. Lending for startups of small businesses will not loosen anytime soon with those sorts of policies.
So, are they afraid because they damn near lost the whole thing? Alternatively, are they maliciously manipulating lending and stock in order to find a more “friendly” business environment among our policymakers? I frankly don’t know, but believe both are true. The good me wants most to simply be afraid and have the current administration find a way to make them feel less so. The cynical me believes they are all thieves and robbers, the media is complicit by only reporting the worst and they will all sit quietly at least until after this November and hope for more tax cuts and freebies.
And so it goes. Still glad you asked what I thought?
Reamus, I have no clue how to reform our elections to prevent the monied from buying elections. I just know it needs to be done. The tea baggers are the right answer, just the wrong vehicle. A liberal third party perhaps might do it.
I can appreciate that there is fear, even in the business arena, especially among the small business interests who usually live on thin margins to begin with. But I can’t help but conclude that at the rarified levels of corporate land, something much more sinister is afoot. As I said, I’m not big on conspiracy and I would even admit that much of this is not “planned”. Rather more likely is that they all pretty much get to the same place on their own and act accordingly. Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.
One is the present state of the economy. Two things here. One is that by all the endices I’ve seen, most of corporate America is doing quite well. They are cash heavy, at least those large corporations. Yet they are not hiring.
Corporations that are heavy into manufacturing are actually doing a lot of hiring. But they are doing so in China and a handful of other countries where wages are depressed. An import tax would help here.
The second thing that interests me is the fact that banks are still refusing to make small business loans to those who desperately wish to expand their businesses and hire new workers.
Because the Fed, to protect the uber-rich from losing wealth to inflation, is keeping interest rates artificially low and the value of the $US artificially high, lending to small businesses generates a smaller return than speculating in the market. Once commercial banks did the lending and investment banks did the speculating. Repealing Glass-Steagall ended the wall of separation between the two, and the lending side is all but ignored. The Fed needs to take steps to increase demand. Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated.
Of course the biggest thing is that, until we have 100%n publicly financed national campaigns, we shell have the best government money can (and does) buy.
I won’t argue with your conclusions Tom, but I guess I’m just cynical at this point. I see Obama doing nothing to push the Fed toward better small business policies? Do you? Obviously anything to gets hiring going is to his benefit.
I’m not at all sure what can be done about elections, as I said. I just know something needs be done.
Excellent weblog right here! Additionally your site rather a lot up very fast! What host are you the use of? Can I get your affiliate link on your host? I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol
thanks! I don’t know what you refer to as host?