I’m going to get off the subject of the Iraq War and back into my favorite subject which is campaign finance. My short tenure as Chairman of the Liberal Party of America was an experience that enabled me to understand how politics works in this country. This knowledge was the reason that we struck our tents as fast as we put them up. It is unfortunate that we abandoned the LPA, but it was inevitable that we would have to, better sooner than later before too many people put their time and money into something that would never had succeeded at the time we embarked on that short journey.
In order to get a good understanding of a candidate, it really isn’t necessary to actually listen to their campaign speeches and to read their campaign literature. The candidates when speaking on the trail will read one of a few speeches that they have given many times, it all depends on the group that they are speaking to. When a candidate speaks to labor, they will read their labor speech. If they are talking to a group of low-income, working class people, they will pull out their “I’m one of you” speeches. I’m not going to belabor the point, I’m sure that you understand. No, the best way to understand a candidate isn’t to listen to them, the best way to truly understand where a candidate stands on issues is to look at who is putting up the money that funds their candidacy. It’s pure commonsense, no group or corporation is going to fund anyone unless it is in their best interests.
“Many of the campaigns have played up the notion that most of their donors give small contributions. What they have not emphasized is that, in raw dollar terms, the big donations are vastly more important to the campaigns' bottom lines.” (www.opensecrets.org)
In order to underscore my point, let us take a look at who financed George W. Bush in his first bid for the White House:
Total Agribusiness $2,636,625 Communications/Electronics $3,332,700 Construction $4,102,856 Defense $180,775 Energy/Nat Resource $2,871,473 Finance/Insurance/RealEstate $15,884,159 Health $4,138,608 Lawyers & Lobbyists $6,648,851 Transportation $2,381,474 Misc Business $8,215,460 Labor $39,294 Ideology/Single-Issue $2,522,715 Other $10,720,550* Opensecrets.org
Now, let’s look at the second campaign in 2004:
Agribusiness $4,923,904 Communications/Electronics $5,536,891 Construction $8,834,129 Defense $819,358 Energy & Natural Resources $4,771,016 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $33,844,215 Health $10,733,645 Lawyers & Lobbyists $12,944,701 Transportation $4,834,343 Misc. Business $20,625,735 Labor $41,290 Ideological/Single-Issue $1,729,485 Other $29,091,633*(opensecrets.org)
What is interesting here isn’t who donated, what’s interesting is that all of the donations actually more than doubled, except for labor. If you take this at face value, even accounting for inflation, why was it so much more expensive to run the second time as an incumbent? I’m not nearly done yet. Looking into who gave what to whom, there is an 800 lb. Gorilla in the living room, see if you can pick it out before I get to it.
John Kerry had his share of corporate benevolence, as did Al Gore. Kerry’s donation by sector looked like this in 2004:
Agribusiness $785,831 Communications/Electronics $9,566,711 Construction $2,201,633 Defense $366,870 Energy & Natural Resources $725,767 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $14,055,247 Health $6,882,290 Lawyers & Lobbyists $23,370,438 Transportation $722,416 Misc. Business $14,769,296 Labor $352,448 Ideological/Single-Issue $737,502 Other $31,167,837
Does anyone see a pattern here? Who makes up these “sectors” that the Center for Responsive Politics calls them? Agribusiness is identified easily enough, Cargill, ADM, Ralston-Purina and all of the agricultural companies fit nicely there. The others sound cut and dry, but are they? Not really, the communication/electronic sector crosses over into defense, as do many others on the list. I don’t believe that there is any nefarious reasons here, its only because it is difficult to group any enterprise under a single banner. I do wish however, that the finance, insurance and real estate sector could have been separated into three different sectors. I believe that the three are so intertwined, with a few corporations holding controlling interests in the three different areas of publicly owned corporations, that separating them wouldn’t be honest, therefore they are grouped together. The way around this would have been to call the sector “banking”. In fact, the largest contributor to Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards and Mitt Romney is Goldman Sachs, the investment banking firm. The truth is that Goldman Sachs has, since 1990, contributed $26,414,065.00 to political campaigns. The firm has delivered over $311,000.00 to Obama’s campaign alone. While Goldman Sachs might be the top contributor, there are many other banks that contribute mightily. Citigroup is one of the top contributors to Chris Dodd, John McCain and Hillary Clinton to the tune of $420,880.00, with the lion’s share going to Clinton.
I could go on all day about the banks that are bankrolling the presidential candidates from both parties. (No pun intended). I won’t because after awhile the numbers become meaningless. I will report that since 1990, investment banks have contributed $177,739,858 to political campaigns. Credit Unions $17,533,968, Finance & Credit companies $48,986,139, Savings and Loans $18,234,312, Securities and Investments $473,725,275, venture capitalists $42,080,653 and Hedge funds a paltry $8,173,223 (since 2002). That adds up to $786,473,428. That’s a lot of money!
Now picture yourself with your contribution to your favorite candidate, the one that promises he will represent you in the White House or the Senate or the House. Think of your $100.00 donation in your sweaty palm ready to lay it down for your principles. Than think of the “finance, insurance and real estate sector” that has given close to a billion dollars that they admit to. Who do you think is going to be represented here? Just remember, when you hear the “conspiracy nut” raving about the bankers controlling the Federal Government, just remember what you read here today. The truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
That’s the way I see it.
Thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics and their web-site Opensecrets.org for the information provided.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Perhaps the single most destructive force in politics today
with respect to our democratic processes is the money it takes to run for office. It makes irelevent, as Mr. Gatto has so aptly noted, the wishes of the electorate and makes our government responsive only to the wealthy donors. That noone seems to mind having the nation run for the benefit of the largest corporations and industries is more than peculiar to me. I believe that it is one of the most significant signals that our democracy may be terminally ill.
One might point to other nations that can run a national election in a matter of a few weeks, and for a few dollars, systems which make the voter important not the boards of directors. The fix is really so simple, I am certain everyone here can deduce the path to do so, yet it is not even an issue on any level of governance. Maybe we the people have abrogated willingly our governments duty to respond to us and not to General Electric.......maybe noone really cares any more.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, September 14, 2007 at 6:06:41 PM
Excuse me, but where does 'The Lobby' come in your figures? It alone is said to contribute half a billion per year (from the non-returnable minimum of 2b. USD that Israel receives annually just from America) to favor Israel and its interests - quite apart from the costs of declaring war on Iraq, of course.
Who owns our Government? - Come, it goes without saying.
Democracy? Don't make me laugh.
But are we going to stand it?
by
Geraldo (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 105 comments)
on Saturday, September 15, 2007 at 11:22:57 AM
Lobbyists are not the largest contributors by a long shot. They contribute approx 5% to political campaigns (which is still a lot of money) but they do not account for the lion's share. I believe that lobbyists are a red herring for the real corporate financiers of elections, the corporate donations. Go to opensecrets.org and look at the figures.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Saturday, September 15, 2007 at 11:49:30 AM
3 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
